Quote:
Originally Posted by Carol
Let me ask a theoretical question. If a ref sees an action which could be a foul, but they need to check with the HR or another ref who had a better sight angle, would you, as a team member, prefer the ref to immediately enter the foul, only to delete it after the match if it was incorrect, or not to enter the foul, and add it after the match after checking?
Yes, in a perfect worlds all fouls are immediately caught and interpreted correctly, but we don't live in a perfect world with professional referees.
|
Personally, I prefer it signaled and not entered. Reffing, I typically end up half-hearting the signal (some kind of a flag point with coach eye contact, rather than an aggressive wave). It's subconscious, but recently a few of coaches that know me have noted it's a nice 'this might be coming your way' warning. I like the signal approach as a coach myself, but fortunately in my case a 'signal' from one of you guys can be a grimace or hitting the radio button.
My druthers resolution? Have an official signal and/or a button (because we all so love buttons) that calls it up on the projector. I prefer the former, but I could see the latter for the crowd. Make it a driver's meeting topic.
I can't believe I've never talked about this before. This is why Carol rocks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathking
I am not arguing that Aerial Assist was without flaws. In many ways I think the flaws were more irritating to me than they might have been because there were some simple fixes that could have greatly improved things. I took a team to Crossroads and the Championships, and I was a referee at Queen City, so I saw the game from two different perspectives. I think the single biggest issue was having the referees both calling fouls and scoring the match. Two dedicated scorekeepers would have greatly improved game play. If the referees didn't have to toggle between screens and were only calling fouls their would have been far fewer missed assists and the like. A close second as far as issues was the pedestal. I think the game would have been better if there was a foul for entering a ball into play before the other was scored, rather than having to depend on a sometimes glitchy pad to pedestal system.
|
First, I look forward to any analysis you do decide on. You've clearly got a very strong handle on the complexity of the question, and you have my apologies as I feel like I've been unintentionally adversarial about it.
Queen City - Queen City was the same week a 2nd of 3 ref gigs, and while I would've loved more refs, we were never toggling screens if we were a scoring ref. (Actually, I never did this, thouh at NYC we had
8 refs.) If I was a foul ref, I'd sit on the possession screen to cross-check, and only flip to the foul screen after I'd signaled one and was otherwise clear--no robots in my zone of responsibility, and my cycle either had all 3 assists already or at least wasn't about to end. Otherwise, we'd radio for entry. I had a truss ref come over and punch fouls for one or both of us a couple times. How was it done a QC? Different places I reffed or played under had better ideas for different tasks, but there didn't seem to be a lot of cross-event consistency even in logistics.
Pedestal - yes, there were a lot of things that worried me about the rules on kickoff (and since), but they seemed to have trade-offs. The pedestal on Kickoff Sunday was my first 'what the heck is the point of that?' moment. The trashcan's only purpose in this game was to make coaches mad at refs, make refs feel bad, upset the audience, raise the responsibility and failure rate of field reset, induce replays, slow down game play, and make dead balls suck more for all parties.
So, in retrospect it actually had a pretty expansive purpose. If I never have to spend hundreds of dollars staring at an unlit trashcan again, it'll be too soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathking
As for 2011, I think the perspective on how annoying the towers were depends on whether your team got short changed. I had two friends whose teams lost a match (or two) that would have left them top 8 in which their minibot clearly reached the top first but was not credited with a score. If your team didn't make eliminations or were eliminated in that way, it would probably make you less favorably inclined to the game as a whole.
|
Yes, I would presume that this is true of any game. (It's why I keep scores in my head--not that that helped with the Towers, but it did for 2013.) Unfortunately I can't think of any quantitative dataset that would allow us to check things like this, so I've tried to shift my anecdotal assessment at least from 'did I hate this?' to 'how many did I see?'