Referees and Human Players

[Swan217]

FIRST in the last few years has been deemphasizing calls made "behind the glass" so to speak, so TKM's post doesn't surprise me, though I still find it interesting. I agree, we should go back to the days where, manpower willing, there are referees to watch the HPs/Drivers/Coaches as well.

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

Sounds kind of like a Harrison Bergeron approach to the problem: if you can't improve, at least make every event equally bad. Instead, I think people would be willing to accept a small systemic inconsistency due to some events having more (properly qualified) referees, because it simply represents an effort above and beyond FIRST's minimum standard of enforcement.

Tristan,
That is exactly the approach FIRST has taken in the past. When I was lobbying FIRST to raise referee standards by instituting a "Referee Test," I was told it was unfeasible because it was hard enough filling volunteer roles in general. I think that was also one of the original reasonings behind the split-off of Michigan from FIRST, in the hope that they could "Raise the Bar" so to speak.

Originally Posted by Adam Freeman

At what point, should a referee step up to a student and let them know they causing fouls? I mean we have flags and hand signals to let the drivers know when they are committing fouls. Shouldn't someone let the human players know when they are committing fouls too?

Adam,
I think you nailed the question. Why didn't the referee step up & notify the student after maybe the 2nd infraction, instead of getting flag-happy? The worst part is the kid in your situation probably never knew what hit him. I know it's the Elims, but maybe that match was his first as HP. I see the goal as a Ref as to help teams prevent potential infractions, as well as award actual ones.

Originally Posted by bduddy

As a field reset volunteer and wannabe ref, I've tried to notify referees about fouls I've seen... in previous years I was told off by the FTA, and this year the refs seemed to mostly ignore me (as I stated earlier).

I notice some people in general get uptight when you try to help like that and think you're telling them how to do their job. They're likely insecure because they aren't performing to their own expectations, but they should realize that nobody can see every penalty, and appreciate the help. Unfortunately, you can't tell them that, so all you can do is shrug it off.

[IndySam]

I have reffed two events this year. If I had to flag an inbounder during qualification I always try and tell them what their infraction was to help them from making the same mistake again. If they don't know the rule by the elimination matches I make no effort to tell them their infractions.

It is almost impossible to police the drivers station during a match. A ref has their zones to watch and that can keep them very busy. About the only time I make sure and watch the inbounders is when I know they are holding a lot of balls and game altering infractions can be made.

As a spectator the last two weekends I have seen many many fouls go uncalled because the ref was engaged somewhere else. I even saw one operator come clear around the drivers station almost all the way next to the ref himself but with the ref watching some close robot action near the bridge he didn't ever see him!

I think a back-judge is necessary if FIRST want's to have these rules enforced.

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by Adam Freeman

The ref behind him would hold his hand up in the air everytime he crossed the line and the ref at the penalty station would input the foul...but never was there an indication to the student or the alliance that multiple fouls were occurring.

This statement is a bit disturbing to me, are you saying that there was more than the standard 4 ref 1 head ref configuration in this match?

[P.J.]

Originally Posted by IndySam

This statement is a bit disturbing to me, are you saying that there was more than the standard 4 ref 1 head ref configuration in this match?

Yes there was. I didn't know that we weren't supposed to do this I guess. At Kettering and Northville this year, we were fortunate enough to have 2 extra certified referees on staff. So during eliminations we put the two extras behind the player stations to watch for human fouls. I was the one who suggested this, and I apologize if this was somehow against the rules. I don't see how this is really an issue, we made an executive decision to help us make sure the matches stayed clean. But if there is something against this I was unaware.

[Adam Freeman]

Originally Posted by IndySam

This statement is a bit disturbing to me, are you saying that there was more than the standard 4 ref 1 head ref configuration in this match?

Yes, I believe so. There was definitely a back judge on both sides of the field. I was watching the blue side during this specific match in question. I also noticed one behind me during our elimination matches on the red side.

I am not a volunteer or ref, so I have no idea how many refs are supposed to be present during a match.

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by P.J.

Yes there was. I didn't know that we weren't supposed to do this I guess. At Kettering and Northville this year, we were fortunate enough to have 2 extra certified referees on staff. So during eliminations we put the two extras behind the player stations to watch for human fouls. I was the one who suggested this, and I apologize if this was somehow against the rules. I don't see how this is really an issue, we made an executive decision to help us make sure the matches stayed clean. But if there is something against this I was unaware.

I think back judges are a good idea but if it wasn't done throughout the entire tournament it shouldn't have been done during eliminations. Eliminations should be called exactly the way qualifications were.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by IndySam

I think back judges are a good idea but if it wasn't done throughout the entire tournament it shouldn't have been done during eliminations. Eliminations should be called exactly the way qualifications were.

There's certainly validity to that idea, but I think that overall, if better enforcement (relative to the rulebook) is the result, the change in officiating practice is justifiable. After all, it's hard for a team to credibly argue that just because they got away with a violation before, they should get away with it again.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

There's certainly validity to that idea, but I think that overall, if better enforcement (relative to the rulebook) is the result, the change in officiating practice is justifiable. After all, it's hard for a team to credibly argue that just because they got away with a violation before, they should get away with it again.

I agree - plenty of "real" sports do something similar (Baseball has extra umpires in the World Series, tennis has video reviews at major tournaments, soccer has goal judges in the Champions League) and people recognize that this is a good thing. Of course, the optimal solution is that these extra qualified referees could have been at the field for the entire regional...

[mandrews281]

I must admit the most common uncalled rule infractions I saw at our regional were human player fouls; but I also saw one get called. The player was throwing the balls back in over the top goal. This caught the eye of the head ref who called the foul. It was obvious that NONE of the human players on that alliance knew the rules. They were leaving balls in the corral and didn't get all their "heaves" in during the last 30sec. They left the balls on the ground behind the wall at the slot when the match ended (not entirely unreasonable), but the field setup crew was a bit confused setting up the next match as it took them a minute to locate the "missing" balls.

[IndySam]

Originally Posted by bduddy

I agree - plenty of "real" sports do something similar (Baseball has extra umpires in the World Series, tennis has video reviews at major tournaments, soccer has goal judges in the Champions League) and people recognize that this is a good thing. Of course, the optimal solution is that these extra qualified referees could have been at the field for the entire regional...

True but those players are professionals who have played their sports for literally thousands of hours where most of ours will never get to play more than an hour in their lives.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Tristan Lall

After all, it's hard for a team to credibly argue that just because they got away with a violation before, they should get away with it again.

Tristan, you know that robot inspectors hear that kind of argument from teams all the time! One of my favorite changes to the manual for 2012 is the prohibition on questioning referee calls for simple fouls.

[mandrews281]

Originally Posted by Richard

Tristan, you know that robot inspectors hear that kind of argument from teams all the time! One of my favorite changes to the manual for 2012 is the prohibition on questioning referee calls for simple fouls.

Mine too. Of course I'm also not a big believer in "instant replay" either; but that's another story. The players are human (or robots) and make mistakes -- so do the referees, umpires and judges of the world. So sometimes calls will get missed -- get over it. It's part of being gracious and professional.

[RMiller]

I have reffed one event and have another next weekend. As alluded to, it is extremely difficult to watch the field and then watch the teams behind the glass. The only time I called this was in the eliminations when I noticed balls were not being picked out of the corral. The worst part was it changed the outcome of the match. However, this is one foul that really does have the potential to change the game (ball hording).

Going forward, it would be great to have more refs for the sake of consistency, but in some regions it is hard just to get a head ref and five others. I was "on-call" this weekend for a regional because there was concern that they would not have five refs.

[Tristan Lall]

Originally Posted by Richard

Tristan, you know that robot inspectors hear that kind of argument from teams all the time!

That's what I mean—that as an justification for violating a rule, it should have minuscule credibility at best.

[neshera]

Thanks for a great (and quick!) discussion.
It seems we really need six referees + the head ref for each match, or to empower the volunteers behind the glass to talk to the referees, and to let the teams know about this.
Now: where do we take these suggestions? Who do I contact at FIRST?