Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick TYler
I don't think <G14> is complex, and it's one refs shouldn't ever get wrong. Things like <G22> are "in the heat of the moment" calls, and should not be second-guessed. It's either a ball or a strike, and the umpire makes the call, likewise for impeding and crossing the plane.
Some of the posts here make it sound like there are an infinite number of obsessed, thoughtful, excited adults just hanging around eager to volunteer to serve at a tournament. Not true. The people who you really want are not going to be seduced by $50, $100, or even $250 paid to be a referee. They aren't going to miss work to go to New Hampshire for training, and they aren't going to be use up more of their vacation either (I'm not going to Boy Scout camp for the first time in nine years because I'm taking 3 days off work to volunteer at Seattle). No offense intended, but youth generally have no idea what sacrifices adults make to volunteer with youth organizations. I've been on the organizing committee for FIRST Washington for a year now, and I can tell you for sure that having too many volunteers is not a FIRST problem.
As for adding four scorekeepers (you would still need the two we already have at each event), that would be another four smart, dedicated volunteers who are already in such short supply.
Here's a suggestion -- each team is required to provide an adult volunteer for each event they attend. This volunteer will have attended two days of training for their job, and will have attended a series of conference calls. If the team's volunteer does not pass a 100-question exam on their volunteer job, the team is not allowed to attend the regional. That would certainly provide some motivation.  |
I don't really understand you. You start out alright, stating that things like <G22> are a judgment call, and <G14> are straight up wrong when applied incorrectly, but then you go on to suggest teams pony up an adult volunteer, which you already said are in short supply (read: my team has ONE dedicated adult mentor). Never mind that the logistics of this are completely outlandish, and the conflict of interest issues that would arise are huge. I also don't really think paying the refs will solve the problem. I know lots of people that get paid tons of money to produce crap. The problem is that its alot harder to 'fire' a volunteer, because their output is crap. Its pretty hard to say to someone that their output is so crappy, we wont even let you do it for free.
I really, truly, honestly DO NOT think that it is unreasonable for teams to EXPECT that FIRST will provide them with a team of referees, who have at least READ the rulebook from cover to cover at least once. Many teams and team members read the book cover to cover tens or hundreds of times in the first week of build. I'll be honest. I DIDN'T read it "cover-to-cover" but, I DID read all the parts that are specific to this years game (Namely the Robot, and Game sections, and small parts of the others). I only read it once. I am known amongst my team as one of the most knowledgeable members when it comes to the rules, and I often find myself remembering something, then going to check it. This is all I expect of the refs. Something like <G14>. I might not expect them to KNOW the part about the partially supported ball by heart, after all, they're human. However, I WOULD expect them to at least remember "Hey, there was something in the rules about a partially supported ball, let me go check that before I make this call."
I DO NOT expect the refs to KNOW every rule in the book to a T off by heart. This would be unreasonable. I DO expect them to have read the book, and questionable events to trigger a checking of the book. The way alot of calls are being made this year, I almost question if SOME of the refs have read the book at all.