|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
#61
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#62
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
I wrote this before reading the replies. I wholeheartedly agree with Racer26. Sam (as senior on 694) wrote an excellent post as well. Great job Sam!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ On the "ranking system", I thought the "picking your alliance" was supposed to compensate for that. Personally, I refer to it as a seeding system rather than a ranking system. It's not a simple ordered ranking but a guide. Like in tennis. The #1 seed isn't necessarily the best - he/she is the one who played/won the matches. Many people realized #334 was the best. I didn't see the match you lost so I don't know if it was bad luck or a jam or what. But you were clearly a top robot and the #1 seed certainly recognized that. We were on the opposing alliance of the one that got 120+ points in penalties. (I think it was more because when they asked for a re-count on their missing 10 points, our score went up about 40 points.) It was early in the day so I'm guessing the penalty calling was overly aggressive. That said, pushing a robot while it is under it's own pyramid isn't a good strategy. Too much risk of pushing the opponent into the pyramid. (The high penalty match was #4 - can't find it on ustream for a link) "not everyone reads the rules" - Sorry, but this is a cop out. We were all given the rules. We are all supposed to read them. If a team is out of dimensions, it doesn't pass inspection. Yes, it is unfortunate that the alliance partners get assessed the penalties too. All I can see, this increases the need for the experienced teams (like both of ours) to *talk* to our alliance partners to make sure they know the rules. Particularly the ones relating to the match strategy. Or any of the 3 coaches to notice the penalties and tell the driver to back off. I'm sorry you feel "done with FIRST" after your team had such a great day. Your team fielded one of the best robots there if not the best. I hope they learned a lot. They inspired others. That is what FIRST is about. And mentoring for the matter. Granted, I'm thrilled we won - but that wasn't the most important thing to me that happened yesterday. |
|
#63
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
How exactly was the blue alliance not penalized for ramming into 334's robot in the feeder station?
|
|
#64
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
Was it the left or right feeder station? (driver pov)
|
|
#65
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
While I am going to avoid any of the specific references brought up in the original post, I think it is worth addressing a couple of things related to the clarity of rules and their enforcement at events. Two things regularly stand out to me that perhaps merit some (re)consideration.
Referee Accountability Let me preface this point by saying that I am eternally grateful to the myriad volunteers that make FIRST tick. The countless hours that are put in by people that give their time to the programme has a profound impact on its participants (me included). The role of referee is amongst the most difficult to take on at a FIRST event. It takes time to prepare for the event before carrying out the various tasks in a high-energy, stressful environment. It is hard, often thankless, work that makes me admire referees tremendously for the work that they do. That said, I think one must not ignore the fact that any role (as a volunteer or not) comes with responsibilities. It will not take you very many threads to find a reference to the fact that FIRST is very much a microcosm for the real world. In this real world, accountability for your actions is paramount and ignorance is not a passable excuse. There are plenty of other jobs that are screaming for your involvement if you do not quite have the time to dedicate to being a referee. Yes referees are volunteers, yes they are human and will occasionally err as we all do, but that is not a get-out-of-jail-free card applicable to every situation. Let us find a way to hold our referees accountable so we do not hear complaints about referee rulings event after event, year after year. Penalty Announcements I would love to see penalty calls (and their rationale) explained by the head referee. As the field is reset there is often an opportunity to explain why a call has been made in a given match - there may only be time to explain why technical fouls are called, but something is better than nothing at all. In my experience, as a score is read off by the announcer readying themselves to introduce the forthcoming match, on rare occasions references may be made to fouls assigned but almost never to why they were called. Perhaps this is to be expected: the announcer's role is keep the atmosphere of the event exciting, not to elucidate the minutiae of the rules. Allowing the head referee a moment to announce any penalties and why they were enforced as they were would bring transparency to a generally murky realm. It would make clear to all teams at the event how the referee interprets the rules and what actions must be taken to avoid being penalised in the future while adding an element of accountability to the referee's actions. Last edited by Shankar M : 10-03-2013 at 15:06. |
|
#66
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
Quote:
I assume R1 is driving back to the blue alliance side to shoot frisbees, but who knows. Is B2 lining up for a hang? lining up for a shot? Did B2's battery die and they are just sitting there? The GDC has not clearly defined all corner cases with explicit examples. In fact, they have empowered the referees to use their discretion in a variety of situations. So in the manual we have a two sentence description on blockading (G25) and in the Q&A we have all of ONE question on G25 (Q491). What is the answer? Quote:
|
|
#67
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
Quote:
I think this should be standard operating procedure, as it clears up a lot of confusion and issues. It's the standard in other sports, like football, for the referee to state what the infraction was for and who it was on. In odd cases (such as 1pt safeties) they explain the full context of what happened and why it merited the call. I agree, at the very least the announcer should be told what rule was violated and who the penalty was assessed on for tech fouls. Especially in eliminations, the teams and spectators are owed at least that. |
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
I was a ref at an event this weekend, and I have been a ref for a number of years. Before that, I was a student and a driver. I know what it's like to be on both sides. I will not comment on the specific call you refer to, it would not be appropriate, and I can only give a personal opinion and can not in any way speak for FIRST, FIRST policy, or for how rules will be implemented at future events.
I will give some personal observations. 1. There are 5 refs on the field, and 6 robots and 24 people who are all capable of causing a foul. Calls will be missed, and some wrong calls will be made. It is unfortunate but it is reality. 2. Some of the rules are subjective and will be enforced differently. Blockading is an extremely difficult rule to call, as is rule G-18-1. Rule G27 requires refs to determine the difference between consequential and inconsequential contact. If you have questions, talk to the head ref on Thursday and ask them to clarify for you their take on it. 3. Every ref I have worked with as a ref is 100% dedicated to getting calls right. No one takes mistakes lightly. 4. The field runs on an extremely tight schedule. In order to get 8 matches for every team there can only be a few minutes in between matches. There is no time to review video, and FIRST rules explicitly deny it. The head ref has a lot of responsibilities during that time, and the refs are busy making sure the field and robots for the next match are setup legally. Furthermore, the rules clearly state all questions must come from a student member of the team directly to the head ref. 5. In my opinion, the quality of the reffing at the events I have attended, from the time I was a driver to now, has consistently been improving. If you want to help improve the quality of these events: 1. Know the rules and avoid situations that make it a judgement call. Talk to the teams on your alliance while in the queue and try to make sure they know the rules as well. 2. Ask questions, especially on Thursday when it's not as busy, before the situation arises. 3. Encourage as many people as possible to volunteer at regionals, especially people with previous FIRST experience. The wider the pool of volunteers, the better referee's will be. |
|
#69
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
Vague rules create situations like this. This situation and this topic are case in point as to why justifications like "common sense", "don't lawyer the rules", etc. etc. don't work. If the "blockading" rule is going to remain in the rulebook, it needs to be at a bare minimum clarified by examples, or else it will remain as it is now: it could theoretically be applied to any defensive effort by more than one robot, and no one knows where the line will be drawn.
|
|
#70
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
The rankings are defined just like the robot rules. To shine in the competition implies ranking high. If teams do not rank high it says they are not excelling. Play the game as it is written NOT how you think it should be.
|
|
#71
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
A few thoughts:
If you have real issues with how events are refereed, the most direct solution is to volunteer as a referee. Be the new standard that all other refs will look to. Just about all of us have been on the bad end of bad calls by referees in FIRST. It is also very likely that we have been on the "good" end of bad calls by referees (a glancing blow to a pyramid that wasn't noticed, etc.). Sometimes it seems things don't go your way so much that you develop a reputation. Believe me, I know what it is like to have "that talk" with a team all too well... It is difficult, but it is what really makes a difference - a real difference. As for the ranking system, the problem isn't so much that really good teams don't rank high (this is really rare), but the the alliance picking system places many, many teams in a "too good for a third pick" category. In many (most?) regionals now, the battle for the championship is between a handful of elite powerhouse teams who pair up and then look for a solid third pick. With all respect to those third picks, they are (because of the system) not generally among the top robots at the event. This places the robots in the 7th through 20th or so seedings (generally speaking) in a place where they almost never have a chance to form an alliance with a really competitive dominant team. There is a much better chance that a team in the lower ranks will be selected to round out those dominant alliances. With the chance to participate in the Championship on the line, sometimes I ask "is this fair?" The clear answer is no. But then I realize that I've been drawn into the trap of thinking that this is about robots and scores and winning. Reboot. Remember why we do what we do. - Mr. Van Coach, Robodox |
|
#72
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
Ouch 694:
"Moreover, individual performance isn't exactly something you can judge quantitatively - e.g. how do you compare offense with defense? 3137 played fantastic defense throughout eliminations and were critical to our wins, but they didn't earn our alliance any actual points." As the coach of 3171, I saw a consistent 30+ points each match by us. 18 auton, 10 hang and a few during tele when we were not defending. Should we deduct the 30 we did not score from the match totals?? Great alliance! Quick changes in strategy during the elims, called by 694 BTW, were critical to the success of the alliance. Team connectivity and replays: all teams should be required to demonstrate updated software before going on the field for practice. BTW have you ever tried to do an emergency fix on a problem with 2 people looking over your shoulder and stamping their feet? Now try it with 65 teams worth of people. Not an easy job for volunteers. Losing the ability to use cameras during elims: We used 2. One to aim, one to spot disks for pick up. OUCH again. Referees' calls: I was steamed. It appeared to me that there were at least 3 instances when we were on the pyramid and got whacked by an opposing alliance member. Once while we were attempting to hang (It bent our hanging hooks) No call on any of these instances. When questioned, the reply was: we did not see it. I am also of the opinion that student's efforts should not result in poor payback because of bad calls. BUT Reality: The refs are human, and volunteers. It will happen. I needed to calm down. (my bad) On rankings: Good scouting over rules ranking. Our scouting database results were consistent with most of the picks for alliances. Again, thanks to all teams for their efforts, especially our alliance partners. And thanks to all the volunteers that make this event a reality! Team 3137 words of wisdom: There is plenty of time to to it right, but never enough time to do it over(especially during a 2:15 minute match) Good luck all for the remainder of the season! fsracer |
|
#73
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
Quote:
I've never had a question about why a technical foul occurred against my alliance in this year or previous ones where similar concepts existed. Sometimes the announcement has been omitted for whatever reason--usually coinciding with comm or scoring issues--but in 7 years and 11 different official venues, I've never encountered a situation in which a polite student in the Q box was not told the exact nature of challengable fouls. (Mentors not so much, but it's illegal and unprofessional for us mentors to be asking anyway.) This is not to say I always agree with the calls, but at least they're not a mystery. If this disclosure is not the case for everyone, I agree that should be remedied. I wonder why the discrepancy exists in the first place. What happens when a student politely questions the technical, and what does the head ref say when you request announcements at the driver's meeting? As to G25, if you have a Q&A to ask, please do. The chances of rules getting clarified goes down significantly if you don't try. |
|
#74
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
Quote:
With regards to penalties, learn the rules and have your scouts figure out how they are being called, you can argue till you are blue in the face. If you want your partners not to commit penalties, take the initiative to have them understand the rules and don't rely on them to have great knowledge going in. We have a list of rules and common penalties that we go over with all our partners before every single match no matter the partner, we even went over them with 375 who I believe has won NYC more times than any other team. With regards to the semifinals, not pictured is 1635 hitting us in the protected zone almost every other time we went to the feeder station, these weren't all called but I'm pretty sure the fouls you are referring to in the disputed match were mostly that and 375 contacting our pyramid and our alliance. Just, because the call was not in your favor or in the stream does not mean it did should not have been called. With blockading I interpreted the rules and I think the refs did as well, the way that blockading has been called in the past specifically in 2011. Two robots teaming up on one robot to stop them from crossing the field. In my mind this refers to only one lane or in front of the pyramid. 1 robot cannot stop a gap from existing in either of these 3 zones, 2 robots can, that is why the rule exists. 2 robots on opposite ends of the field cannot be evaluated as a blockade especially because that would mean that if one robot is on one side playing defense that means there is no way for their partner to enter the other side of the field because there is now no area they can cross without creating this interpretation of a blockade. Also the idea that if the robot can go under the pyramid or not has an effect on the call is pretty crazy. What if I have a robot that can go under but the bot breaks and is stuck in the above position? This is not only unfair because you have made a design choice around not being able to use this part of the field but is also up to the referee to evaluate if you can under the pyramid or not to see if you are being blockaded. To me the rule is pretty black and white. Two robots sitting in front of their opponent trying to stop them from getting somewhere is a blockade, everything else is just defense. |
|
#75
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
Quote:
I'm sorry for not understanding, but what? How do you have a system where you earn $750 per match won? This seems very different from all sponsorship we have or I have veer heard of. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|