Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I am certain that the folks at FIRST are concerned about providing a consistent experience to all teams and are making an effort to get that to happen. This season's instructional course for referees represents a good step in that direction; but coupled with the ambiguity of what constitutes a violation of many of the rules, it is ineffective. More needs to be done.

FIRST has had good success in retaining the institutional knowledge of regional directors, field technical advisors and other staff at the 'executive' level of events. Officiating staff should be considered to be of the same importance as these other key volunteers and absolutely must have existing knowledge of a team's experience as they work through a competition season. Their knowledge must be maintained and informed by the experience of operating on a team.

It is absurd to think that the time and effort invested into a competition season by so many teams -- most of whom attend only a single event -- is ultimately at the mercy of someone who's only connection to FIRST and to the game is a conference call, an online training course and two days spent at an event. The competition is a means to an end and no amount of bad officiating is going to take away what kids learn during the season, thankfully, as otherwise these competitions would be a joke.

Generally,

• Officiating staff -- all of them -- must be retained from year to year and have investment in the program beyond two days per year of involvement.
• The officiating staff must be more involved in early development of game rules so as to weed out as much ambiguity as possible. Referees have no place determining intent during a FIRST match and shouldn't be asked to do so.
• They must know the rules. Institutional knowledge will improve understanding of a complex rule book, but there is no excuse for a team of referees that doesn't know the rule book chapter and verse, so to speak. I spend a considerable amount of time ensuring that our robot complies with every rule and I don't think it's too much to expect that the referees would spend as much time learning the rules for their part.
• Teams absolutely must be informed after each match of which rules they violated. I don't care about the schedule. Imagine a football game wherein they never announced what the action was that drew a penalty, nor who was responsible and how the crowd might react to that. Ambiguity is a sure fire way to create discontent with the staff.

I'm not going to pretend that I'm not exceptionally angered by the officiating at the Oregon Regional this weekend, but that we have a student dedicated to watching the referees is absurd. Something ought to be done to eliminate inconsistency in officiating in as many ways as possible and the only way to make that happen is to talk about how discrepancies appear and figure out ways of eliminating them in the future. A training course is a step in the right direction, but we need more.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

Complaining about the referees does no good and undermines their authority. This is not what we want to teach the students.

If you have a suggestion (or suggestions) as to make it better, then please post them here and be specific.

I'm not picking on you as I understand your frustration ... I am instead trying to turn your frustration into positive action.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

Madison,

I suggest you bring this up directly to FIRST, specifically Aiden Brown. I am sure he will welcome all suggestions and ways to improve. He and Dave Lavery were at St. Louis this weekend and were very interested in the referees and the scoring system. By the way, the reffing at St. Louis was excellent. They did a great job explaining the violations and were consistent with their calls.

There were some discrepancies with counting lines and counting trackballs, but I suspect that will get worked out soon.

In any case, the most effective way to get things done regarding this is directly with Aiden. Specific examples and situations are always best.

-Paul

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I agree that the referees have been very inconsistent. After each match, the penalties are always unpredictable. I also found it ridiculous that, at least in the Oregon Regional, there were no refs on Thursday. So when the refs started on Friday, they were not familiar with many of the penalties.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I had the privelege of meeting and talking with Aidan behind the scoring table at St. Louis this weekend. He recognizes that our real-time scoring procedures are not 100% accurate yet, and let me assure you that he is NOT willing to accept things as they are. However, being a world-class engineer, he is not willing to insert ill-considered fixes, either. He and the GDC will get to the root causes of scoring problems and they will be addressed, but action without data is just not the right way. Aidan is getting his data, and analyzing it. Please be patient and understand that real-time scoring systems are just as challenging as robot design.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

Thanks, Paul.

I was a bit afraid that any discussion I tried to have about what could be done would be inappropriate at this time in the season. Everyone's busy and I have no doubt that everyone involved is absolutely dedicated to making things as good as they can be. I am interested in watching the season progress and, from that, developing a more substantive set of ideas about what steps can be taken to make things better for everyone.

It's difficult to point out specific examples in many cases because, again, teams were not being told that they were penalized. My knowledge of what confusion there was comes from my experience on the field as a coach and from our scouts in the stands that were watching the referees.

Specifically, there was concern that:

• teams were being penalized for driving clockwise within a quadrant, but not crossing backward through the plane of a line.
• all contact outside of the bumper zone was being penalized.
• there need be more clarification about protection for hurdlers (<G42>), particularly with respect to how it applies to machines in between the hurdler and the overpass
• signaling to pass using a trackball in your possession was disallowed
• teams were not being told what penalties they'd incurred
• it's difficult to determine if you've been signaled to pass and most teams weren't sure what to look for from the refs regarding whether it'd happened and how much time they had to move.

There were good things that happened, too.

• Our robot got caught up in another robot and we were penalized for entanglement. The referee that called it came up to us and explained what happened and why the penalty was called. That's perfect and it's much nicer to know it's coming than scramble after the score is announced to figure out what's happened.
• During the elimination rounds, many teams -- ours included -- assumed that we'd be allowed a pit crew. The head ref. quickly informed us that it wasn't allowed and was able to let us know which section of the manual had the relevant information and that it had been deleted. Again, great. As soon as she said that it'd been deleted, I recalled exactly what she was talking about.
• After confusion about how <G42> was being enforced on Friday, the refs included a brief explanation on Saturday morning of what they were looking for.
• Early Friday, one referee stood out by calling many, many more penalties than the others. She was replaced or moved into a different position that made the officiating more consistent. This was FANTASTIC and demonstrated that the refs were trying. That matters.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I know what you mean about being completely baffled as to what a penalty was called on.

While I know this isn't the case everywhere but I know at least at the regionals I announce at, when the head ref gives the scorer the penalties, I makes sure I get the team numbers and the penalties, and announce those when the score is put up.

Like I said, I know this doesn't happen everywhere, but I think it helps the teams at the event.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I think its really important to know where the calls are coming from, its really good of you to do your best to let the teams know this. I hope the game annoucers at Waterloo and GTR will be doing the same.

I can see how upseting it would be thinking you won a match and then ending up loosing due to penalties and from a teams point of view, the reffing would upset me because of that. However, I'm sure the refs do their best to make the calls and theres a lot of action going on on the field.

It takes several referies to make the penalties so I can see how easy it would be for one person, who is most likely focusing on their robot to miss the call. This leads to those people feeling like their getting penalties for nothing.

Again, having the penalties annouced makes everyone lives so much easier. Teams know where the penalties are coming from and can use that to improve themselves, or make clear, supported, constructive critism.

The only comment Im going to make it how I completely agree this point made by sumadin.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I've removed a bunch of personal attacks and other posts not having to do with officiating. Let's try to have some constructive criticism.

Those involved in the removed discussion, please continue that via email or private message. Let's keep this thread about the rules and if they are or are not being enforced properly and consistently .. whichever the case.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I would like to repost the noninflammatory part of my post.
I believe that with the massive number of rules and the numerous rules focusing on intent regionals are now impossible to accurately ref in real time. Due to the high speed nature of the games and overall competitions teams are often left completely baffled as to why they received 50 penalty points often not even knowing which robot the penalty was called on.
There is a need for some kind of video review system--although many would say this is too complex or expensive consider the regionals as they stand now. Video from the regionals is transmitted around the world and many regionals are held in stadiums where video replay is a common feature of events. First most definitely has the technical skills to pull this off.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

George, we haven't met before but I do know your reputation as a great announcer. I think announcing penalties is an important part of keeping the audience, and the participants, engaged in the competition. How can people be inspired if they don't know what's going on?

We try hard to get all penalties announced at the St. Louis regional, too. In some complex cases, we have the Head Ref explain the penalty personally, but most of the time he relays it to our game announcer.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

At BAE GSR starting on Friday, they were announcing what the penalties were and which team it was on. This made things easier to understand.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I'm going to have to agree that announcing penalties is a must. It is very annoying (as a spectator) to see a close match change hands for no apparent reason.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

Matt, I'm going to refer you to a thread from after the 2005 season. I just want you to read the first five pages or so--after that, the thread got really ugly. It's got a pretty good discussion of the topic of instant replay and why it should and shouldn't be used in FIRST.

On to the original topic of this thread...
On some points, I agree. On others, I do not fully agree. I definitely agree with the first point, but would like to say that that is not always possible, so some refs will be new every year. As to the second point, Aidan Browne is a ref and on the GDC. As I remember, Dave said at kickoff that Aidan was not happy during game development several times. Now we know why.

I definitely agree on knowing the rules. I think that's what the instructional course is for. I also agree on the fourth point. Every penalty should be explained, at least to the teams. When the penalties are announced in football and soccer, the players are told even if the audience is not.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

Having review that nasty little argument I'm going to let the issue drop with my final statement being that times are changing and as games become more penalty intensive something will be needed.

To return to the original topic I believe that due to the complexity of the rules no amount of training or officiating will ensure a correct call. My parents are lawyers--the wording of the rules now bears a remarkable similarity to the wording of the Arizona revised statues especially when dealing with intent. I think this problem will be best resolved by the game design committee and a shorter rule book.

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...

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I said it once before and I'll say it again. They need to make a video showing certain situations that violate rules and ones that do not. While you can not cover all situations, if you get enough situationsout there, most refs will be able to follow what the rules are intended for accurately.

And Elgin. I love that idea. A lot of people tend to ignore what the announcer says after a match (no offense announcers, many people are not paying attention at that point because they are doing other things/the music is too loud to hear you.) It should just be the Ref's voice only stating why it happened.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I agree that making the penalties called in any given match announced to the public, and to the teams competing more specifically, is important. I remember back in 2005 at the Silicon Valley Regional when one of the dreaded 30 point penalties was called against an alliance going up against 254 and company in the finals. It was a close call for whatever reason (I can't remember the details, I'm pretty sure there is a thread somewhere on CD about it) but the crowd was very upset with call, even booing. Probably one of the biggest displays of negativity at a FIRST event could have been avoided if the penalty was clearly announced to the crowd and all controversiality regarding the call explained.

Also, as driver for my last 2 years on team 114, and human player the two years before that, we made a point of walking into the challenge square, or whatever its called, not to argue penalties, but just to find out what we did. I even remember waiting in line once or twice to talk to the head ref. Simply announcing the penalties would alleviate this problem and make for a smoother event.

In any case, thank you ref's, and all of the other volunteers, for making FIRST possible. I hope improvement can be made, just have they have been (penalty flags, yellow cards, etc.), since I will probably be refereeing next year :p

Mike C.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I hear you. I think I said something like that too.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

Where are you going to shoot this video, about 3-4 weeks before ship? Gonna use the animation or the people-bots from Kickoff?

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

You better be nicer or there just might be mistakes in scoring!

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I for one would like to thank the referees at St. Louis for doing a great job. I referee soccer myself, and I understand the pressures involved in refereeing. I had a couple incidents where I had to speak with the head ref, and he was very understanding, and agreeable. There was another instance where I had to talk to another ref, and once again, the communication was there, and we were able to work through it.

Advice for talking to referees: Be patient, and agreeable. You arguing will never get them to change a call, and in all instances whats done is done. The only thing you can hope for is that in the future the refs will call it your way, or you can avoid whatever the situation was that initiated the call.

Also, know the rules. What eats me alive is when someone argues with a ref, but has absolutely no clue what the rules are.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

Basically you can either do an animation or people bots. Doesn't really matter. And you make it to be released coinciding with the manual.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I can see both sides of this argument. Referees are human, and if there is one thing we can guarantee, it is the fact that we humans do have a tendency to err. Of course, the other side has just as much validity to their case. For a team to pony up $6,000 to attend a regional competition is no mean feat. For them to fork up that kind of money to be the test subjects at the first competition of the year, particularly if it is also their last competition of the year, is definitely a tough pill to swallow.

This is not a new point of discussion. This issue has been a popular (or not-so-popular) topic for the past few years that I've been around to witness FIRST events (and likely long before then as well).

However, something that is new this year, is a FIRST "unofficial" regional during the competition season: the Kettering FRC District Rookie Competition. I imagine that the main goal of this event, after giving some of the lower budget teams a shot at attending a second event, is to give rookie teams a taste of the FIRST atmosphere; to learn what things are like.

One of the interesting things I saw mentioned in the event's description was that the event will be "played on a regulation 2008 FIRST field with all 2008 game rules in effect." Now I understand this is a pilot project, but could there lie some potential to improving officiating through an event like this? If this were an event that was held as, perhaps, a pre-season competition, wouldn't that give everyone the chance to do some learning?

The rookies attending would get a head start on understanding the atmosphere and environment of FIRST. Teams that do not attend would be able to get a feel for the game and understand what it is like. (I have always liked figuring this kind of stuff out first hand, but there is only so much you can take away from a webcast, so I think a lot of the figure-it-out-for-yourself mentality is preserved). Perhaps, most importantly, this kind of event would allow referees to see how certain elements of the rulebook will play out. Following the competition, approaches to the game could be revisited, rules could be tweaked, and event video (a popular suggestion for how to "train" referees) could be circulated to "regular" season competitions. These clips could then be used by event coordinators and head referees to better prepare the referees at their event for the task at hand.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

Now that we have seen almost (if not) 20 regionals it seems like there are major call inconsistencies in the officiating at regional. I think that there needs to be a massive ref meeting in the next week or two to get the rules clarified. I know the refs jobs are hard but there has to be a better way to educate everyone on the rules

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

And how do you know whether or not that happens now? Not a face-to-face meeting - would you like your fees raised a few hundred per regional so the refs could be flown across the country to a meeting? But there are conference calls that go on for all aspects of the game - inspection, queuing, reffing, etc.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

YES.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

2nd-ed

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I agree completely with the original poster.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

Yee-haww!! Where do I sign up?


We are already paying a lot for the competition and our robot and stuff. I bet if a team had to fork over an extra $25 dollars ($37575 this year for the 1503 teams), I don't think many would mind because at least they would have peace of mind that the officiating would be more consistent.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I think it would be for the embetterment of the game experience for the students. If it only cost a few hundered dollars to get the refs to a massive rules meeting I would pay it out of my own pocket.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

Sorry I should have clarified I was thinking. I was proposing something more along the lines of a web-based one. Where every ref would have to attend, maybe a system similar to soap's gameday would work.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

Neither of those truly reflects the real game.
FIRST has some way of testing the game before kickoff. I don't know what it is, but the week 1 regionals aren't the first time the game gets played. Somehow, it has to involve driving real robots around on a real field.
The problem with releasing such a video is that part of the game is figuring out how it will be played. If we all got to watch a few real matches on Kickoff day, it would completely change the build season. Perhaps the video could be released a week or so before ship date - late enough that it won't affect anyone's design, but early enough to be studied to death and to have questions clarified in the Q&A.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

Absolutely. If that's what it takes to get consistent, accurate, and better refereeing, then I wouldn't think twice about paying a few hundred dollars for it.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

OK, everyone's rich and can pay the refs' transportation and lodging fees.

Now, who's going to go to all the refs' day job employers and explain why they need a couple extra days vacation?

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

While there is a real field at kickoff, there are no real robots until teams build them. There are pre-ship scrimmages, with more or less attention to the rules, but the week 1 regionals are the first time the game is played for real.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

You want to wager six dozen Krispy Kremes on that?

The Week 1 regional competition events are the first time ANYONE sees the game played for real. And, yeah, I am _very_ sure about that.

-dave

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

wow that's a huge surprise to me I had the same thoughts as Steven

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I wouldn't be surprised if there were some human simulations prior to Kickoff, but the robots thing doesn't surprise me much. Imagine how much time and effort it takes to design and build a robot with a whole team in six weeks. Now imagine building six robots with thirteenish people (sorry, don't remember how many people are on the GDC) who live long distances from one another and are busy with their other jobs. The GDC is made up of talented people, so if we assume it takes them six weeks to design and build each robot, which I think is not excessive given their lack of manpower, it would take eight months to complete six robots. That means they would have to complete the game design in March in order to get a month to test the game in December.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

Actually, FIRST has an account with the equivalent of $8 million cash in it. I think they could afford the ~$16,000 it would cost to fly 40 referees to Manchester (less, really, since many head refs do more than one regional.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about getting ALL referees up to speed.

The amount of available cash still doesn't explain how you're going to get the referees, head or otherwise, excused from their day jobs to attend said conference.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

Do it the weekend before the first weekend of events.

If you're going to sign up for a job as important as head referee, you ought to be committed enough to doing a good job to have a day or two to put towards doing it right. I understand they're volunteers and taking time out of their schedule to support FIRST, but if there are consistently problems, there's got to be a better way to do things.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I'm not sure if this rule has been mentioned yet but clarification on whether a ball supported by a bot and the overpass is counted for 12 bonus points. EXTREMELY important: this was the rule that made teams replay the final match of SVR

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I'm sorry, but now we're approaching the realm of ridiculous.

That was a blue ball, supported by the overpass and touched by a red robot.

There is absolutely no need for any clarification on this rule, unless I'm reading it wrong.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I understand the frustration of having inconsistent calls but, lets remember two things:
1. We do not have professional Referees. They have real jobs. They take time out of their busy lives to help you play a game. They are Volunteers, and they deserve all the goodwill that you can give them even when they make a bad call.

2. The game changes every year. The the week one regionals are the first time anyone has seen the game played. If the game was carried over for a few years, i could see the calls being more and more consistent, however, with the format we have now we will have to be contented with a flawed game.

The only solution i feel that could remedy this problem would be for the GDC to significantly reduce the complexity of the games. The more complex the game the more there is for the refs to look at. The less complex, the easier time they will have.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I agree with you--BUT, we're not talking about judgment calls here. We're talking about specific instances in which the rules as written were EXTREMELY clearly about the way certain situations are to be scored, and having the referees score them incorrectly.

That signals that the referees may not have a basic understanding of the rules, which is inexcusable, whether they be volunteers or not.

This referee test was supposed to help make things more consistent. In order to make the process as transparent as possible, why not release it to the public? It would show a lot of goodwill on FIRST's part, and unless the test is just a formality, and not really effective, alleviate some concern that FIRST is not adequately preparing the referees.

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.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I apologize. I assumed that AB, and CD were homestretches.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

If the refs are limiting where you can shoot from, I hope Aidan hears about it before tomorrow. Remember, hurdling from outside your homestretch is allowed (you just don't get hurdling protection).

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

You might want to quote whatever rules or Q&A you are basing that opinion on.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

<G42> is the hurdling protection. One condition is that the robot is in the homestretch. Therefore, a robot outside the homestretch gets NO hurdling protection.

As for the rest, the definition of hurdle doesn't say "from the homestretch".
But you want the GDC's response in Q&A.
Here it is.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

1625 did a couple shots across the lane divider like 27 Rush did and the Colorado referees said that it didn't count. My brother, Aren, then had a long discussion with the head ref. and I am not too sure he got anywhere. Hopefully all of the rules will be straightened out before all of the qualification matches tomorrow.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

Aiden has been contacted, as well as, other GDC members. I expect this to be straightened out in today's dirver meetings. The definitiions, rues, and Q & A regarding this subject make it pretty obvious that the diagonal hurdle is legal if it satifies the rules of a legal HURDLE (note: not HURDLING).

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

Just for retrospective clarification, there were teams that interpreted EricH's three Q&A's to coincide with their opinion and interpretation of the game rules that a trackball needed to be HURDLING in order to score 8 points.
After clarification from Dr. Browne, all doubts were laid to rest on the legality of hurdling from the quadrant clockwise from a teams homezone (it counts)

As a (hopeful, even if temporary) closure to this topic, I am pleased to see the generally progressive and constructive tone to the challenges that this season has presented. We are seeing a vastly expanded rulebook, we are seeing literally thousands of penalties called each week, points being subtracted in a scale not seen since 2005's 30-pointers, and not likely to be equaled any time soon. We are seeing much more pressure being put on volunteers from both sides, from both FIRST National and from the teams, for perfection in an imperfect world.

But it seems as if people have realized, for some part, that at least on the perfection part, we are progressing in the right direction. Going from a small-scale cultlike following to a worldwide movement obviously requires some (heckova lotta) change, and obviously we're in the middle of it, all of us. As the sign says, "Please excuse our dust while we are remodeling."

And so this year it seems like people on the most part understand. Last year was the burst of anger and surprise and shock and outrage that reverberated through the entire FIRST community, and this year there hasn't been as much emotion as that. Yes, there are still some bricks and mortar that we're stubbing our toes on (and some people that need to learn the responsibility that comes with their roles in FIRST, in regards to this forum), but at least the volunteers are being trained better, and the folks upstairs in their jeans and hawaiian shirts are saying, "There is a problem, we are aware of it," even though it seems like they aren't doing enough to act on it. I have no doubt that next year will be better than this year, just like this year was better than last (because honestly, I don't want to imagine anything worse).

Oh, and P.S. - for the record, from experience it's about 100 times easier being a bleachers referee than being a real referee. Try the latter sometime. (No, seriously, I need refs for MARC, ARC, and Kettering.)

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

As a team that competed in a regional twice before the Hawaii one, I made sure I talked to Fred, the head referee about certain "gray" areas or areas that were interpreted and called "differently" to see how he would instruct his crew to call them in the event certain things happened.
Just a suggestion to do the same prior to championships matches, especially during practice day so that no confusion takes place and the record is set.
Of course many teams have different regional(s) that they attended versus other teams and the timing of when they competed may have rules that have evolved/clarified since they last participated.
Since, as stated, that almost 75% of teams only compete in one regional, they cant assume the refereeing will be exactly the same at CMP.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I talked to benge in boston, and he instructed me that as long as the ball was completely within the overpass, meaning it wasn't over the center bar with the FIRST logo on it, it would be good.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

Just another thing to add on to the pile...

I saw a Ref at Boston, during a match (not in between matches, which some refs do which I am more okay with but still don't completely agree with), take out his cell phone and text someone on numerous occasions. I started taking note of that same ref, and noticed that he/she was paying attention to the wrong area most of the time, which nearly got him/herself killed on numerous occasions.

This ref did happen to fall under the "Friend of the VC" category. Although, I do know that Boston was short staffed on refs and tried to get anyone to ref.

Put that on to the plethora of bad calls he/she made...it was one of the worst ref jobs I have ever seen.
The rest of the ref crew did happen to be great though. It was one of the best ones I have seen, besides the aforementioned.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

Volunteer Coordinators were informed today to recruit the following for the game this season:
1 Head Ref
3 or 4 Refs
6 Scorekeepers

Refs will need to pass a test, scorekeepers will not.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

I do not know if the could do this but in the playoffs if a team wanted to use a timeout and get video replay to see if its a close match and see if some points are missing.

Re: Improving Officiating at FIRST Events
 

Oh, no! Search for "instant replay" to see why I say that... Namely the one about "this is the year for instant replay".

Doable, yes. Practical, no.