Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sw293
The final in Philly was turned on an excessive rough play call, where the refs accused the Long Island Regional champion and Chairmans winner and former Regional Sportsmanship Award winner of intentionally tipping another robot.
|
I think we should be careful of using words like "accused" here. If things were perfect, and they aren't, I don't think a ref's opinion of intentional vs. unintentional should ever have to play a role in his/her decision,
if the rule clearly defines what is wrong and what isn't, and the governing body of the competition makes it clear that one and only one interpretation of that rule is acceptable. Sometimes, kids make mistakes, and they tip over a robot unintentionally, or they swing their tetras over a player station, accidentally causing a student to be struck. They should be penalized for their mistakes in just the same manner as the team that just went out, locked on to a target, and hit the gas, or drove around like hellions who didn't care where their arms or their tetras swung, and they should accept their mistake and the consequences that resulted from making it. Ideally, the only application of referee judgment would come in deciding which teams to warn/watch/disqualify because of their continued reckless play and which teams to leave alone because they know the kids made a simple mistake.
There is naturally going to be a fair amount of judgment the refs have to make when assessing penalties based upon G25, but it amazes me that the range of interpretations is so very widespread. Sometimes, the aggressor is so obviously over the top that they tip or damage another robot, yet no penalty is called. Other times, the aggressor plays defense according to the strict wording of the rule, yet they are flagged. G25 seems very clear to me, and I simply cannot understand why all these different interpretations of this and other rules have been permitted to be exercised at these events.
I've said this before - refs at any one event tend to be consistent with their rulings and generally call the game true to what is discussed in that event's initial refereeing meetings; it's the inconsistency from event to event that is the true driving force behind this frustration for so many.
What is so different about calling this year's game compared to last year's that is causing so much widespread heartache and disappointment for people? It boggles my mind. Last year's game was so memorable for me because I CANNOT remember one time where the refs and their calls became the focal point of the event - it was all about the great driving and hanging and ball gathering and Human Player accuracy - it was all about the excitement.
It's just so....disappointing to see so many discussions of this nature pop up this season. It's also disheartening to see the actions of these volunteer refs placed squarely in the spotlight of these debates. On the whole, they are not the direct source of all this frustration for teams. They are just trying to do their jobs the best they can based upon the game, rules, and communication FIRST has given them. I continue to be amazed that someone can't simply fix this problem - how hard is it to just communicate?! Perhaps there are forces and roadblocks at work behind the scenes that I will simply never comprehend, but I continue to hold out hope that the dedicated people at FIRST will find a way to make things better. Bharat was right - let's hope the championship is the place where FIRST makes things right, for if such field-to-field inconsistency as we've seen so far is permitted to plague the playing fields at Atlanta, where the separation of the venues is a matter of feet, not hundreds of miles, I shudder to think of the team reactions and repercussions that would result.