[Jaine Perotti]

I am quite alarmed and frustrated by the inconsistency with which refs are applying G25 and the *overaggressiveness* 10-pt. judgement call FIRST wedged into the rules after they were released.

This issue concerns me too. I think it is ok to be concerned by issues such as this. While it isn't ok to obsess over mistakes that have been made, it is acceptable to examine the events of the past in an effort to improve things for the future. Its not fair when teams at different regionals are judged by different standards, and it is perfectly acceptable to try to review these decisions. This is an incredibly subjective argument over an incredibly subjective debate - a debate which has its roots in things that have been controversial within FIRST for a long time. I am going to take a position that is a balance between what seem to be two extreme postions - (1) that FIRST has let down many teams by being unjust in it's inconsistent rulings, and that these inconsistent rulings MUST stop now, before any more teams become disenfranchised of wins that they deserve... and (2) that referees should never be expected to be perfect, and to criticize them for ruling inconsistently is detrimental because it creates an atmosphere of negativity and sets a bad example to students.

But I am going to stop for a minute -

Maybe I should print out G25 on a banner the size of a freakin' Freightliner and bring it to each competition I attend?

Frankly, you do not get it. You do not get what FIRST is about.

Before we move on in this discussion, I want to ask one thing of all of you. Please don't insinuate negative things against one another, or let your passion for the issues make you go overboard. If we argue too much with one another, and let things get too out of hand, we will have a much harder time coming to a sound consensus on a solution for this problem. And yes, there is a problem - and we all need to acknowledge that. The fact that a respected mentor within FIRST brought the topic forward to be discussed - and the fact that many people agree with him - means that there is some sort of an issue to be addressed. It does not mean that he is right or wrong in his concerns, but it means that there is a grievance to be resolved - a grievance that we should step forward to and try to redress as a team of concerned individuals.

Originally Posted by Billfred

I'll say it--both Aidan and Travis have valid points.

G25, unless there's a consistent plan in place to enforce it, will end in students, mentors, and quite possibly the random spectator off the street having a bad taste in their mouths. If someone gets too angry, they might just take their business to some other contest. You can say good riddance to a team that didn't "get it" all you want--but FIRST still lost a team. In my humble opinion, we want to avoid that.

However, we can't allow folks to harbor negativity over one rule. I've only been in FIRST for two years, but I've heard of some doozies in the past. Time will tell if G25 can join that list of doozies, but in the meantime, remember--it's just a game! These competitions are the sorts of things that only happen three (or for some, six, nine--or twelve or more) days out of the year. As such, the refs will have three (or for some, six, nine--or twelve or more) days of experience. We come together, do our thing, and split. The fewer bad feelings at the end of those days, the better

Thank you Billfred.

It has already been said, but I don't think anyone is setting a bad example to students by asking their fellow FIRSTers to put thier heads together to discuss a problem. A bad example will only be set if they continue to harbor grievances and bad feelings... and leave everyone involved - students, mentors, and parents - with a bad taste in their mouths. Don't let the negativity fester and spread... work constructively for a solution.

...

Back to my opinion -

I believe that in an ideal world, all teams would be judged fairly against the same standards of game play. All teams would be given the same judgement, and all teams would be given just judgement. However, I can't expect things to run as perfectly in the real world. Referees are different from competition to competition, and each referee has their own definition of what "overly-aggressive play" means to them. I agree with what many people have said here already... it is impossible to ask that every team, everywhere experience the same treatment by referees in game play situations.

Originally Posted by Jeff Waegelin

Speaking as a referee (from the Detroit Regional), G25 is a very difficult call to make, because it is, at its heart, a judgement call. Even when you know the rules extremely well, as I do, it is incredibly difficult to make that call, and to keep it consistent, because every situation you witness is different. What may be crystal clear in one situation is clear as mud in another.

In addition, everyone has a slightly different idea of what counts as G25. Some believe that most contact should be eliminated to encourage offense. Other referees take a laissez faire approach, saying "let the teams play."

Jeff offers insight which is important for all of us to pay attention to.

As much as it is important to recognize the human-ness of referees, I agree with others in saying that there is room for improvement. While I will never ask that referees have PERFECT judgement, I would like to ask them to try to get as clear of a universal definition for "agressive play" as possible.

Originally Posted by Jeff Waegelin

So, as you can see, it's not an easy call to make, and an even harder one to make consistently. Is there room to improve on this? Absolutely.

So how is it exactly that we can improve on this? The answer to that question is what I would love to see in the responses to this thread following mine. I want people's ideas - and as FIRSTers we should be fairly good at coming up with innovative ideas - not people's frustration ventings (although there is a time and place to vent frustration...lets just not make it here in this thread).

I will throw an idea into this big pot of idea soup -

What if - directly preceding, and during competition season - there were weekly meetings of referees (not sure how the meetings would work, since refs are from all over the country - maybe a chat room could be set up?) to discuss, and set forth, a general philosophy about what calls to make in different situations. For example... the issue about disabling robots that might drop a tetra over the drive station wall... they could discuss that issue, and come to a consensus as to what counts as "presenting significant danger", and what specific actions should be taken to the offending alliance/team. They could also review decisions that had been made earlier in the week(s), and decide whether or not those actions were appropriate and how they should be alternately dealt with in the future. For example... they could watch sections of video of matches in which robots came close to dropping a tetra over the drivers station wall, see how the referees responded, and decide whether or not that was appropriate. If not appropriate, they could discuss what should have been done, and establish what should be done if a similar condition arises in the future. This could almost be a form of what we call "judicial review" - in which laws are examined, and then interpretations of those laws are developed. We need a set version of how rules should be interpreted - and somehow these interpretations need to become common knowledge among referees.

There are probably flaws in the above idea... for example, setting up the meetings... but perhaps others can build off of it or change it to make an even better idea. Whatever happens, I want to see people offer their input constructively - I want us to move towards a solution. You have already heard my speeches about why arguing is bad, and why negativity needs to stop, so I wont repeat them again. See this as an opportunity to flex your brain muscles... see it as you would see the new game challenge in January. Open your minds, and tackle this problem.... like I know all you robotics nerds can!

Thanks for putting up with this long post,

Jaine