Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking

[Starke]

Originally Posted by cmrnpizzo14

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.

I believe he is dividing up the $5000 dollar entrance fee into the number of matches played. Depending on the number of matches played, a team pays roughly $500 - $750 dollars per match.

[Nuttyman54]

Originally Posted by cmrnpizzo14

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.

I believe he is saying that they're paying $6000 for a regional and they get 8 matches, so they're paying $750 per match to play.

[cmrnpizzo14]

Originally Posted by Starke

I believe he is dividing up the $5000 dollar entrance fee into the number of matches played.

I believe he is saying that they're paying $6000 for a regional and they get 8 matches, so they're paying $750 per match to play.

Aah, thank you, I was very confused about that. However, are you really viewing the registration fee as paying for matches? I don't think that viewing 2 matches that were affected by a referee's decision as a complete waste is a good outlook on FIRST. Frankly, the referee's are just volunteers. If you are taking this so seriously that winning qualifying matches are that big of a deal to you, I think you need a bit of a reality check.

FIRST isn't about winning qualifying matches or even blue banners from the Championship. It's about inspiring science and technology in the youth. I guarantee that the kids on the team won't remember specific matches in anything other than a positive light several years from now. If they don't, they aren't doing FIRST for the right reason.

Please, can we stop complaining about the referees and the rules? GDC works hard to make these games every year. Just because something didn't go your way doesn't mean that it was a bad game. More often than not it was most likely actually your fault. No one is trying to "fix" FIRST matches. Let's stop acting like the referees are all wrong and that they are out to get you. 90% of the time the referee's make the correct call and when they don't it really doesn't matter.

Just my $0.02, sorry if it doesn't agree with yours.

[tzjin]

I agree completely that matches are not fixed. Human error is at fault, not some conspiracy FIRST has planned against any individual team. The fact that 5 referees (at LSR) handled the entire event is still mind-boggling to me, and I know I certainly would have had an extremely difficult time in their shoes. Their sacrifice of time and effort is certainly much appreciated.

That being said, the registration costs are quite significant for most teams, and the students on ours raised every penny. While I disagree with the sentiment that losing the match is equivalent to wasting a portion of the payment, it is certainly disappointing to know that your ranking was determined by a decision beyond your control. Winning is still an important part of the competition after all. Just as athletes shed sweat and tears for the gold, FRC teams toil and labor for a blue banner. Inspiration from the process is certainly the most important, but it's awfully difficult to be motivated when your efforts may be rendered useless by the interpretation of a rule. I know certainly that there are still a few who laugh wistfully at our team's last match at SVR 2008.

There were two main issues I noticed. Firstly, results could not be challenged whatsoever. There is a question box for drive coaches to respectfully request review of the match. We were brushed off twice by the understandably busy head referee. There was a video recording on hand, but due to FIRST's rules, it could not be factored into the decision. It took a little while to shake off the disappointment, but we were fine after another match.

Secondly, the interpretation of rules varies a bit from competition to competition. For instance, fouls for contacting an opposing robot touching their pyramid was heavily enforced in certain Week 1 regionals, but was passed over multiple times during LSR.


Unfortunately, I criticize yet have no concrete solutions to offer. More in-depth training, a more specific rules manual and a greater number of referees would probably help, but how much would have to be seen. This has been an issue year after year, and while it has been getting better, an incorrect call still stings.

It would be wrong to pass over this flaw completely, but it is important to recognize that the referees are trying their best. So once again, I feel the need to thank the volunteers for their hours of service. They have an extremely difficult job, and every team appreciates their contributions to the regional.

[bduddy]

Originally Posted by jblay

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.

I'm sorry, I think it's a pretty ridiculous stretch for you, a ref, or anyone else to say that essentially any 2v1 defense on a robot constitutes blockad[ing] the FIELD in an attempt to stop the flow of the MATCH. You can't just pull the word "blockading" out of that and treat that as the rule, and "stop[ping] one robot from crossing the field" does not, in my opinion, come close to meeting the actual definition of the rule, nor does anything that happened in that match. Would you honestly look at the rule the same way if it hadn't been your team that had benefited from that call?

[alex334]

Alright, I feel that this discussion is drawing towards it's natural conclusion.
I just wanted to summarize some of the things that I've seen repeated and that we can all agree on.

• Refs work hard and their job is very difficult. Yes, they are just volunteers. We greatly appreciate their work even though it often goes unthanked. However, this does not mean that they are always right. We would like to see more accountability in terms of decision making. Perhaps in the form of explanations of large penalties after every match and a more refined system for appeals.
• The GDC should work towards removing ambiguity in the rules. We understand that this is a difficult task, but a few more examples of blockades, etc. would have greatly benefited the competition. Try to explain rules, especially if they can be left open to interpretation.
• Field communications seem to be getting really wonky. Please look into better solutions than having every team disable their cameras.
• FIRST needs more volunteers. So go help out! I know I will be from now on.

Thank you everyone for your responses. A lot was clarified and many topics were illuminated. It was a great season for 334 and I am tremendously proud of all the students on the team. I hope that the season improves for later competitions in terms of uncontrollable issues and wish you all good luck. I know that I will be sticking around for a long time to come, likely as a volunteer as some of you suggested. 334 will definitely be back with a vengeance as the work for next year has already begun.

Once again. Thank you.

[FrankJ]

Maybe add pay attention at the driver's meeting. This is the place to find out the event ref's interpretation of the rules. Ask well thought out questions there. Listen to the answers.

[kamehameHA]

First, I'd like to thank all the judges, referees, and volunteers that I met and interacted with at the NYC regional. Second, I'd like to voice my concern over the communication errors that occurred during the elimination matches. I understand that having 65 teams continually shuffle through the field is difficult, but forcing teams to turn off their cameras in the finals wouldn't fly at most other regional competitions and definitely not at championships. Losing our Kinect feed completely crippled our ability to shoot.
More frustratingly, our robot lost communication during the teleop periods of our only elimination matches. Although the first couple of elimination matches were replayed, ours was not. Despite talking to some of the field management people, the ruling was never made and we were considered out without taking a single shot.

[sbak94]

"Firstly, the ranking system. This year's seemed to particularly wonky. At a regional as large as NYC, eight matches per team simply don't cut it. How can a robot's abilities be assessed fairly in comparison with the rest when it mathematically does not have the chance to play with/against every other team."

You are lucky that you get 8 matches. At the Seattle Regional which has almost the same number of teams, we have gotten as few as 6 matches each in the past.

I agree with what others are saying, if you want to have a more accurate ranking system, you would have to be paired with every single possible combination for both your own team and the teams that you are against. There is no feasible way to do this unless we were to stay at competition for days...
I believe that the majority of robots that deserve to be in the top are usually there, although sometimes it is a bit wacky as you said. But overall as a student that has been with FRC for six seasons, I feel like FIRST does a good job of setting up rules and ranking systems that work pretty well.

It is impossible to ask the VOLUNTEERING refs to do an even better job reffing than a team of football, basketball, soccer or hockey refs that are TRAINED and PAID PROFESSIONALS. I think that the refs do a pretty great job, and I am saying that after my team suffered from some hard debated calls last year at the Spokane regional. Nothing will ever be perfect dude.

If you have such an issue with it, don't participate in the program anymore. Maybe you should go out and start your own robotics competition that includes the things that you see "missing" from FIRST competitions.
Overall I do not see how you could have such grief over something that is supposed to be about learning. That is the whole point of FIRST. And sometimes students AND adults need to learn to accept defeat and BS that comes their way, which a situation like yours seems to have been a great opportunity.

[Tom Line]

Originally Posted by Stephen Kowski

Your assertion that 'some refs don't understand the proper meaning of the rule' seems like a hasty generalization to me. I would imagine they understand the rule but have made a judgement call that you disagree with. If you want more bright line rules go talk to the GDC, not the refs.

I agree with your post, and will also point that bright lines are impossible. The more FIRST tries to draw lines in the sand, the more lines need to be drawn.

They will never be able to call out enough specifities in the rules to remove doubt. Considering that the refs have to learn a completely new game each year, the more simple and concise the rules are, the better. That means by necessity the refs will always have to make judgement calls.

I leave you with a perfect example. During the elimination rounds, a team (not one playing against us) hung. They continued to bounce their rear wheels off the ground through the end of the countdown after time had expired.

I asked the ref how he was calling it (in between matches when I was joking around with him) and he told me - if the bot is rocking and the wheels lifting off the ground, it's supported by pyramid and not the floor.

It's a judgement call, and I'll stand behind the refs when they make them, good or bad. We've certainly gone home disappointed a number of times directly connected to ref decisions. So have NFL, NBA, and NHL teams, and their games don't change each year.

[Karthik]

Originally Posted by cmrnpizzo14

I guarantee that the kids on the team won't remember specific matches in anything other than a positive light several years from now. If they don't, they aren't doing FIRST for the right reason.

Thanks for letting me know I wasn't doing FIRST for the right reasons when I was a student, I wish someone told me sooner.

Originally Posted by cmrnpizzo14

Just because something didn't go your way doesn't mean that it was a bad game. More often than not it was most likely actually your fault.

Of course, the famous "let's blame the teams" response. This worked well on Einstein.

Originally Posted by sbak94

If you have such an issue with it, don't participate in the program anymore. Maybe you should go out and start your own robotics competition that includes the things that you see "missing" from FIRST competitions.
Overall I do not see how you could have such grief over something that is supposed to be about learning. That is the whole point of FIRST. And sometimes students AND adults need to learn to accept defeat and BS that comes their way, which a situation like yours seems to have been a great opportunity.

This is a great attitude! If you don't like a certain aspect of FIRST or something that happened to you at an event, you should go quit! (Sorry for blowing up everyone's sarcasm detectors.)

We had a post from a concerned FIRST participant who was unhappy with his experience at his event. Instead of listening to his concerns and trying to see where we can improve things, people feel the need to chastise him, tell him he doesn't understand FIRST, and that he should go quit and find another program. I can't believe that's what this forum has come to. If someone can't offer criticism of the program without having stones cast from the glass houses of the peanut gallery, there's no way we'll be able to keep the program growing and improving.

[Jared Russell]

The best answer to these concerns isn't instant replay, a challenge system, or a 500 page rulebook.

It is a District-based competition model. NYC has 65 teams, each paying $5000+ for 8 matches. Not much space for growth, and a large number of teams are "one and done" participants whose 2013 season is now over.

A FiM/MAR model gives you more than twice as many matches per dollar (Minimum 24 matches, and two shots at making eliminations at small events rather than one in a larger crowd)...

1) It lessens the impact of an individual "bad call"

2) It gives ranking algorithms more samples so they can converge towards a true "top 8"

3) It necessarily results in more trained refs who get to experience more matches (and presumably get incrementally better as they do so)

Yes, losing because of a bad call sucks. It has happened to all of us at some point. How should we choose to react to it? Complaining on the internet is seldom the best way. Instead, understand why it happened and what can and can't be done about it. Funnel your frustration into motivation*.

* (I'd be willing to bet that the poster immediately above me was pretty freaking motivated going into their record-setting 2008 robot build after a frustrating end to their 2007 season)

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by sbak94

It is impossible to ask the VOLUNTEERING refs to do an even better job reffing than a team of football, basketball, soccer or hockey refs that are TRAINED and PAID PROFESSIONALS. I think that the refs do a pretty great job, and I am saying that after my team suffered from some hard debated calls last year at the Spokane regional. Nothing will ever be perfect dude.

If you have such an issue with it, don't participate in the program anymore...

Better I think would be to participate more. Become a volunteer and try to improve what you see as deficiencies in the current volunteers' performance.

[MooreteP]

Originally Posted by Shankar M

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.

I am a Game Announcer at GSR, WPI, Boston, and Hartford this year.
I always try to announce and explain fouls, especially technicals fouls, who they were called on for affecting which Robot, and why.
This is very important to reduce question box activity, but also to explain to the audience and provide data for scouts.
This is discussed in our weekly conference calls with Blair.
We hope to improve on this in the upcoming weeks.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by Karthik

Thanks for letting me know I wasn't doing FIRST for the right reasons when I was a student, I wish someone told me sooner.

I'm glad someone else voiced this. I honestly thought I was screwing something up for myself and my students when I read that. There are some bad matches that are just plain unforgettable, especially when you're behind the glass with everything on the line.


I'd like to answer the OP, though I'm on a fine line (I was reffing the event, though the incident was caddy-corner to me and I did not witness it). Without discussing the call, I will say--in a statement that's biased more as a coach than as a ref anyway--that I don't believe the head ref's conversation was ungracious, if for no other reason than he was talking to a mentor, which he's not intended to do anyway. OP, I'm interested to know what happened when one of your students asked in the Question Box. If they did not receive a timely and correct answer, that's certainly something that can be changed.


I have no solutions to offer for the ranking system, though I will point out that the system is part of the game. Yes, there's luck in the schedule, but if you can't work with the ranking, you're not playing the game. We've been on the good and bad sides of this, and I have to say this year is among the most straight-forward years in recent history.

That said, I love the District Model's guaranteed 12 matches. Turnover is impossible sometimes, but it's serious bang for the buck. Finding a way to manage something like this in other places would be great, but I'm involved enough in MAR to know how challenging it is. Even just adding another field to Javtis requires significantly more volunteers and support.


Like others, I cannot see video replays happening. I wouldn't mind having a challenge flag that instituted some other yet undetermined review process, but I can't see an unbiased and cost-effective way to institute video reviews. Some events have enough trouble setting up video at all. And especially in this year's game, angle is everything. The view from my Week 1 driver's station* is entirely and utterly different from my Week 2 ref stand (despite running back and forth for both). It's really unlike anything I've played on in 8 years. You can probably find an angle to show anything this year. Take a stroll around the field--it might even tweak your strategy.

*...from whence I ranted silently about several 'blatant' missed fouls in a match we lost by 1 point. ...It goes both ways though: in Week 2, I got reamed by a coach that thought an opponent was hitting him in a hang, when in fact from the side it was clear his ally was the one in the way, and the opponent wasn't even in contact.


As for G25, I stand by my Q&A suggestion. I'd do it right now (and I will do it later), but I asked 5 of the last 7 and the GDC may or may not be ready to kick me. I'd suggest something about if blockading can mean 'robots-on-robot' or if it must be a 'zone defense' sort of thing (relative to impairing the field rather than a robot).