Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RyanMcE
Haha, thanks for your input Steve!
|
Now there's an outstanding post, Ryan.
I'm in the same boat as Ryan - I've only seen a small handful of regionals. I've only personally attended Pittsburgh, and while I admit I didn't get to watch nearly as many matches as I'd have liked while I was there, my impression is that the penalties were being called fairly and consistently, and also according to the rules. I thought good defensive strategy was permitted, but dangerous and damaging strategies weren't. That is my opinion based upon a limited number of matches viewed. The question is, is this refereeing "style" similar enough to all the regionals that have been held to be labeled "consistent"? One would hope yes, but frankly, based upon accounts on ChiefDelphi, I'm just not sure. That's why I ask about penalties for "aggressive play" in the final match at Boilermaker - I want to understand how and why penalties are being called at other events to determine if FIRST is doing a good enough job of promoting consistency in rule interpretation. Inconsistency is the easiest way to breed anger and frustration in teams. MLB umpires are horrible at this; while the NFL seems to keep tighter wraps on the performance of their refs. Let's hope FIRST follows the NFL model so the games can be judged fairly across the board, solely on the talents and skill of the teams putting their robots on the field, and not the inconsistent judgment of the volunteers watching from the sidelines. (*Clarification* - This "inconsistent judgment" I'm referring to is on a regional to regional basis, not a single event basis. In no way am I being critical of any one ref crew's performance at a competition. It's the inconsistent interpretation of rules across the board that I'm hoping we can avoid. If any past or present FIRST ref took what I said the wrong way, I apologize.)
Steve W was the announcer in Pittsburgh, among other regionals - he witnesses every single match of an event in person from one of the best viewing spots possible. His job is to watch the action on the field, and his final act after every match is to announce the penalties that have accrued. His accounts of the refereeing and penalty calling would be far more credible than mine. His opinions on what he is seeing on the field are certainly up for debate, but what he actually saw is not. I consider Steve's input to be a valuable resource in judging fairness and consistency of refereeing at FIRST events.
The one big gray area seems to be arms dangling tetras over the operator's station. I remember when we got precariously close to doing this during the course of the match, and I had no idea what the refs would call, primarily because there is no set rule that defines what is and is not legal. Some refs have disabled robots for breaking the plane by a thousandth of an inch. Others have actually left robots enabled even after they dangled tetras over the operator station that actually STRUCK a student. This call seems to be left solely up to the interpretation of the individual refs, and that is unfortunate. One clearly defined rule should be in place across the board, and if it already is,
it should be communicated to everyone! The fact that we are debating what should and should not be called regarding tetras over the operator's station is evidence enough that this particular act has not been adequately addressed by FIRST in the rules and/or communicated to the teams. While the mid season rule updates may be frustrating for many, as long as FIRST goes out of their way to
communicate these changes to everyone via team updates and verbal announcements at the events - things they have done for many rule changes in the past - and as long as the refs enforce the rules in *nearly* the same manner at each event, it's no big deal. But if our robot does something that's considered perfectly legal at one event but suddenly becomes a penalized action at another, that's when I'd start to get my feathers ruffled. With proper communication and training, there's absolutely no excuse for that situation to ever happen. If FIRST fails to address issues like these in a timely manner, as time goes by, I think it becomes increasingly more difficult for teams to employ Gracious Professionalism in dealing with these problems when the professionalism of the game itself is being compromised by the governing organization's failure to maintain the integrity of the rules. I think we can and should all be patient with mistakes (alliance selection snafus, scoring software) and oversights (inadequate or missing rule definitions) the first time around, as long as we see that FIRST responds quickly and effectively once they occur. I think they have done a great job of that in the past, including earlier this season, and I am hopeful they come through again on this particular area of debate.