Quote:
Originally Posted by lineskier
Based on what I saw at UNH, I would say no. The refs were doing a really good job of only calling egregious violations. Also, it is certainly possible for a team to make up for these penalties even in the elims. Take for instance our first semifinal match:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8HCV...lMsJyhDvk57J7Q
We racked up 70 points in penalties and still won the match. Also note that this was against the alliance that inevitably went on to win the banner (after going through 3 semi final match 3s due to replays).
I was very impressed with the reffing, and never felt that a penalty we were called on wasn't warranted. Even when it altered the outcome of a match, I think the calls were fair.
Take for instance this match:
In a game with 60 point cycles and 75 points up for grab in autonomous, the 50 points is just enough to make it hurt when it happens. I equate the 50 point penalties to pass interference call. They can certainly affect the outcome of a game, they are sometimes controversial, but if they were less they may not be enough of a deterrent. |
And based on what I was seeing at the Arkansas was exactly opposite. This is a personal amecdote just like your anecdote. The problem is that there is too much for the refs to do in order to have a consistent experience across all the venues. The fouls are too subjective and too penalizing. My experience with Aerial Assist, this is not a game of highest scoring alliance winning but who the referees allow to win.
I am happy you had good refs, I was not happy with ours. A change in the game rules is necessary to eliminate as much of the human subjectivity as possible. First should strive for consistent game experiences and that requires doing something with referee calls swinging games.