Re: Refereeing
 

So if I'm understanding you all correctly your saying that you want an all encompassing rule book with no ambiguity, right?

Just for grins lets do some math:
last year there were just sort of 1100 matches in week 1
with 5 weeks of regionals thats 5500 matches total, add in the Championship and the total is 6651.

Say for discussion that the refs had to make 10 decisions on a given robot in a given match, or 60 total per match
60*6151=369060

I for one don't want a rule book that covers 370,000 situations and what the appropriated ruling is, do you?

I feel that the referee crew does a great job, my point is that a rule book that covers all situations can not exist, and that more rules and regulations are not the answer.

Re: Refereeing
 

We recognize that the rule book cannot cover every single situation. That is NOT what comprehensive and complete means!

However, as bitter experience has taught a lot of long-time forum members, having a loose rulebook may not always be an advantage. Just the other day, I ran across the following thread on a rule that was very open to interpretation, which is what you seem to be advocating: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3661

For the record, there are about 3 other threads on that topic. Two of the 4 are moderated, either due to extreme emotion either way or desire to preventing said emotion from degenerating.

A comprehensive and complete rulebook does not cover every situation, as not every situation is foreseeable. A comprehensive and complete rulebook lays down the rules as they are to be called, and some guidelines on what would likely be called in a hypothetical situation (say, high contact between robots). It is loose enough that the referees can give grace in situations they are not sure about (ball under robot, after Week 1), but tight enough that if a robot breaks a rule, it gets called (contact with a robot contacting its own tower). The advantage of the FRC rulebook is that it is flexible, allowing for game-affecting unforeseen situations to be dealt with quickly (reference the ball-under-robot rule and the seeding bonus).

You don't have to cover every situation, but you do have to give the referees enough guidance to make the right call at the right time, keep the calls consistent throughout an event, and call the game the same between events within a certain margin. Calling a solidly built arm breaking off due to very agressive defense not a penalty at all (not to mention a 10-point and robot modification almost intentional tip when there isn't a 10-pointer in the rulebook for that), and then calling accidental high hit/tip a disable/DQ, at two different events, is not cool. (After this happened, the head refs had to get training before being allowed to head ref. I'm pretty certain that both head refs involved are still reffing/head reffing.) But calling a pin over when the pinned robot moves off what it's being pinned off of versus calling it over when the pinning robot finishes backing up the requisite distance from the spot of the original pin is within tolerance, at least for me.

Re: Refereeing
 

Link should be http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=36614

Re: Refereeing
 

Guys,
Referee training and actions have changed quite a bit since 2005 as have inspections. We should not reference these old threads when discussing issues under the new rules and methods.

Re: Refereeing
 

Al, this is understood. The reason that that thread was brought up was as a reason that the refereeing methods have changed, and as an example of the disadvantages that a "loose" rulebook that is very open to interpretation can have. There is a poster that seems to be advocating that sort of rulebook; knowing what has happened when that sort of rulebook is used can be very helpful.

Re: Refereeing
 

exactly. being a soccer referee, a lot of responsibility is put in your hands and there's a lot of interpretation to go along with it. Still, as a referee, I think it's better to have a loose, but flexible rulebook, rather than a strict and rigid one. The rulebook can't account for every situation, and it shouldn't have to.