Quote:
Originally Posted by Koko Ed
The easiest thing to do in the world is to stand on the sidelines, point a finger and criticize.
If you really think the refs are so bad step up and show them how it's done.
Volunteers are in short supply and we always need more.
|
The perception of a problem is equally as damaging as an actual problem. Simply because one has never refereed does not mean they can't have a perception of a problem. I didn't see this thread as too much criticizing a person. I viewed it more as asking for clarification... it also led to Siri's question (below) which is a good thing.
(I will admit, the title comes across a little critical but my impression was that it was not intended in that manner)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Siri
That's fair, do you have any suggestions for improvements? Based on this thread, the refs there were quite experienced (in fact having done more official events than the OP).
|
The primary problems I see (as one who has never been a ref but has a fair amount of experience with FIRST games)
- "Intent" rules - "consequential", "intentional", "make every effort" are all vague terms and leave refs open to perceptions of bias. Rules need to be black and white. if X then Y
- Blind Spots on Field - if the ref can't see the area of the field they are responsible for how can they ref it?
- Too many things to watch - Climbing this year? I'm SURE there were teams out there with invalid climbs. How many times did that penalty get called? Making people watch that much at once leads to calls getting missed. Leads to calls of bias and what not.
- 54" Cylinder rules - Seriously, does anyone even think these are enforced?
- Cycle Time - Refs need some time to deliberate. Especially in eliminations. Teams need time to ask questions. Field Supervisors need to recognize this. (I'm just gonna duck preemptively as I just suggested fewer matches)