Referee not knowing the rules

[runneals]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

We all know it's frustrating when you see something the ref doesn't.

I can tell you regarding the refs (As I know all of them)... this wasn't their first show this season. Or even their second. I'm pretty sure they all were at both the Duluth and Minneapolis regionals. Additionally, I know the technical for a blocker being out of the autozone did get called earlier during at least one qualification match (I saw it happen, saw the flag, and shared comments between matches with the refs that that particular foul was the difference in the score between a win and a loss).

Again, it sucks to see something that the refs didn't, or expect a foul to be called when it isn't, but unfortunately that's the nature of the game.

We noticed the refs being *extremely* cautious/lenient at North Star on Friday this year for calling fouls/technicals. We even joked about it during our scouting meeting, up to the point where we were going to have our mentor sit by the field with the rule book on Saturday to be able to show the refs the how it should be ruled, even if that meant helping our opponents. Luckily, they got their game together on Saturday, and made ~95% of the correct calls.

I give refs credit (they are volunteers after all!) for doing their best, but I suggest to all the head refs to have their refs practice during practice matches, before their rulings count. Also I believe that some of the rules this year could have been better clarified to allow refs to make better calls. From experience as a ref at a FLL this past season, there is no way to be completely ready to ref an event. I suggest that FRC makes a video like the one that Scott made for FLL & shows it to the refs. I felt as if that video helped me understand the FLL game a bit better, as an outsider.

[rwkling1]

Originally Posted by runneals

We noticed the refs being *extremely* cautious/lenient at North Star on Friday this year for calling fouls/technicals. We even joked about it during our scouting meeting, up to the point where we were going to have our mentor sit by the field with the rule book on Saturday to be able to show the refs the how it should be ruled, even if that meant helping our opponents. Luckily, they got their game together on Saturday, and made ~95% of the correct calls.

I give refs credit (they are volunteers after all!) for doing their best, but I suggest to all the head refs to have their refs practice during practice matches, before their rulings count. Also I believe that some of the rules this year could have been better clarified to allow refs to make better calls. From experience as a ref at a FLL this past season, there is no way to be completely ready to ref an event. I suggest that FRC makes a video like the one that Scott made for FLL & shows it to the refs. I felt as if that video helped me understand the FLL game a bit better, as an outsider.

Thank you for the input, and I totally agree. The scoring system and the fouls were quite weird this season. I really appreciate the refs, but sometimes I can't help but be a little frustrated, but that's fine. I'm not blaming our whole season on them, there is definitely things we did wrong.

[WaterClaw]

We were on the alliance that was suffering referee insufficiencies mentioned in the beginning. I also must mention however this was an off season event. Quality was not a necessary factor. People were simply playing the game in a somewhat recognized event.

I do see where my teams' alliance partner would be coming from. This is a bad representation of FIRST and disregards gracious PROFESSIONALISM. But again, this was barely a recognized event and irrelevant as far as actual FIRST endorsed events played.

No one is perfect, and I would just like to thank the refs for their time at our regional. They did their best and we thank them for their work.

Finally, I must somewhat agree that referees need a much larger understanding of the rules. They do a lot already, but as in everything in FIRST, we need to continue to improve.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by WaterClaw

Finally, I must somewhat agree that referees need a much larger understanding of the rules. They do a lot already, but as in everything in FIRST, we need to continue to improve.

That's fair, do you have any suggestions for improvements? Based on this thread, the refs there were quite experienced (in fact having done more official events than the OP).

[WaterClaw]

Originally Posted by Siri

That's fair, do you have any suggestions for improvements? Based on this thread, the refs there were quite experienced (in fact having done more official events than the OP).

Actually, I didn't recognize them at all from Northern lights or any regional for that matter. I primarily took it they were volunteers with minimal understanding of the rules as far as refs went. My sincerest apologies if I am wrong.

However, again, I appreciate how they took time to ref our post season regional regardless if they were volunteers or full time refs. I've seen how hard their job is and I personally wouldn't do it with out a broader understanding of the rules.

And that brings me to my suggestion. As far as improving it goes, I believe it would be a good idea to have referees take a quiz or comprehension test of some sort to establish they have a well rounded understanding of the rules. The test does not necessarily eliminate the refs from refereeing however it forces them to re-evaluate their understanding of the rules.

If a quiz or anything related is in existence, it should be made more difficult and I believe lessons or lectures should be given to iron out technicalities. These Lessons would be given by the game creating committee and shown not only to referees but also to teams to establish clarity and alleviate tensions that may arise on and off the field. The lessons must be available both in video and in text so that one perception of the rules can be clarified by the other. The game creating committee has the responsibility of coming up with entertaining, challenging and interesting games as well as the rules for them. It should also a responsibility I believe to iron out discrepancies for all involved.

Also, this is only an idea. I am aware there are videos explaining field elements but I think we also need ones ironing out technicalities in the rules. And I believe we should have the creators clarify and expand understanding of their amazing creations.

[Siri]

Originally Posted by WaterClaw

Actually, I didn't recognize them at all from Northern lights or any regional for that matter. I primarily took it they were volunteers with minimal understanding of the rules as far as refs went. My sincerest apologies if I am wrong.

Just so all's clear, Jon Stratis indicated that they'd all reffed Duluth and Minneapolis (both), so it's not odd for you not to recognize them.

Originally Posted by WaterClaw

If a quiz or anything related is in existence, it should be made more difficult and I believe lessons or lectures should be given to iron out technicalities. These Lessons would be given by the game creating committee and shown not only to referees but also to teams to establish clarity and alleviate tensions that may arise on and off the field. The lessons must be available both in video and in text so that one perception of the rules can be clarified by the other. The game creating committee has the responsibility of coming up with entertaining, challenging and interesting games as well as the rules for them. It should also a responsibility I believe to iron out discrepancies for all involved.

There is indeed a test (nor is it new for this year), and while I won't claim it's rocket science, it is pretty comprehensive. However, for obvious reasons it is devised before the competitions actually start, so it's no surprise that it misses some the subtleties. For those it predicts, it's actually rather rough in assessing them.

In an perfect world, the test would be revised weekly and refs working the next weekend would have to take that. I actually quite like this idea, but given how difficult it is to recruit refs (or other certified volunteers, or volunteers at all for that matter), this is probably logistically prohibitive. A variation might be to take this, say, at the beginning of their Day 0. It could provide a framework around which to discuss the new situations that pop up every week. Of course, this could still require a schedule shift for those that have to come in later, and someone(s) still have to revise it throughout the season.

Originally Posted by WaterClaw

Also, this is only an idea. I am aware there are videos explaining field elements but I think we also need ones ironing out technicalities in the rules. And I believe we should have the creators clarify and expand understanding of their amazing creations.

There was an actual training curriculum last year, videos and all. I'm not sure why there wasn't one this year (though I can guess - time required and commitment vs benefit), but it went back to just a test.

That said, FIRST has been very clear for years that they refuse to discuss the...subtleties...of the rules. Just mosey through the annual Q&As, and you'll see a whole lot of "We cannot comment on hypothetical scenarios. Real-time evaluations will be made by Referees given the full context of the occurrence". If they won't do it on the Q&A, I wouldn't expect them to do it in videos. They barely do it at the Championship driver's meeting.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by WaterClaw

Actually, I didn't recognize them at all from Northern lights or any regional for that matter. I primarily took it they were volunteers with minimal understanding of the rules as far as refs went. My sincerest apologies if I am wrong.

However, again, I appreciate how they took time to ref our post season regional regardless if they were volunteers or full time refs. I've seen how hard their job is and I personally wouldn't do it with out a broader understanding of the rules.

And that brings me to my suggestion. As far as improving it goes, I believe it would be a good idea to have referees take a quiz or comprehension test of some sort to establish they have a well rounded understanding of the rules. The test does not necessarily eliminate the refs from refereeing however it forces them to re-evaluate their understanding of the rules.

If a quiz or anything related is in existence, it should be made more difficult and I believe lessons or lectures should be given to iron out technicalities. These Lessons would be given by the game creating committee and shown not only to referees but also to teams to establish clarity and alleviate tensions that may arise on and off the field. The lessons must be available both in video and in text so that one perception of the rules can be clarified by the other. The game creating committee has the responsibility of coming up with entertaining, challenging and interesting games as well as the rules for them. It should also a responsibility I believe to iron out discrepancies for all involved.

Also, this is only an idea. I am aware there are videos explaining field elements but I think we also need ones ironing out technicalities in the rules. And I believe we should have the creators clarify and expand understanding of their amazing creations.

To address a few points... Your team was at one of the four Minnesota regionals, so I'm not too surprised you didn't see most of the refs this year. However, I can assure you that they were all longtime FIRST refs, who not only ref our regionals, but also ref most of our offseason events.

There is a test for refs, just as there is one for Robot Inspectors. Additionally, the head refs are included on a conference call every week to talk about what happened the previous week and what they need to watch out for (the inspectors have a similar call). The head refs are then responsible for any on-site training that is required, just as the LRI trains the inspectors.

I also want to note... It is extremely difficult recruiting refs, more so than most other volunteer positions. Imagine you're a ref for football or soccer or baseball. You go in knowing the rules, since you grew up loving the sport. You can ref it for 20 years with only minimal (if that) rule changes. Now you come to FIRST and get recruited to be a. Ref. your very first question is "what are the rules?" Well, when the answer comes back "the rules change every year", you get nervous and drop out. The changing rules in a very high pressure and high profile position like that makes it very difficult to recruit new refs. So, anyone out there (not directed at anyone in particular in this thread) who has a problem with the way the refs work... Step up and volunteer to ref yourself (after you graduate, if your still a student)!

[Jon Stratis]

It looks like the video has been posted:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...1&postcount=37

To address the first point from the OP, getting a technical for touching a robot in the safe zone... At about 10:25, you can see 2169 push 4656 from one corner of the safe zone to the other as they try to get into position, and a flag being waved by the ref standing right there. If I had to guess, I would say this contact could be considered consequential. At 11:53, you can see 2169 attempting to push their way into the safe zone after having left it, but not quite making it in... the ref nearby was closely watching, and did not wave his flag. Please note we don't see that area the whole match, so I'm just going based on what we do actually see in the video.

For the second point, a robot over 60" tall outside of the autonomous zone, we go to the second match between these alliances (starting at 17:35). Unfortunately, the camera seemed to focus mostly on 2169, and didn't show much of what is being questioned. There were several shots of the red blocker robot with the blocker down (thus the robot was under 60") driving around midfield. There was one shot with the blocker up and the robot around midcourt, but it was very brief, not showing how the robot got into that position, and it did show the robot heading back towards its auto zone (I would say worthy of a foul from what we can see). Near the end, there was a great shot of the blocker being deployed with the robot racing towards midfield and lowering the blocker as it reached the auto line. There simply isn't enough evidence on the video to show that there were "continuous or repeated violations" to earn a technical.

Hope this helps!

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

The easiest thing to do in the world is to stand on the sidelines, point a finger and criticize.
If you really think the refs are so bad step up and show them how it's done.
Volunteers are in short supply and we always need more.

The perception of a problem is equally as damaging as an actual problem. Simply because one has never refereed does not mean they can't have a perception of a problem. I didn't see this thread as too much criticizing a person. I viewed it more as asking for clarification... it also led to Siri's question (below) which is a good thing.

(I will admit, the title comes across a little critical but my impression was that it was not intended in that manner)

Originally Posted by Siri

That's fair, do you have any suggestions for improvements? Based on this thread, the refs there were quite experienced (in fact having done more official events than the OP).

The primary problems I see (as one who has never been a ref but has a fair amount of experience with FIRST games)

• "Intent" rules - "consequential", "intentional", "make every effort" are all vague terms and leave refs open to perceptions of bias. Rules need to be black and white. if X then Y
• Blind Spots on Field - if the ref can't see the area of the field they are responsible for how can they ref it?
• Too many things to watch - Climbing this year? I'm SURE there were teams out there with invalid climbs. How many times did that penalty get called? Making people watch that much at once leads to calls getting missed. Leads to calls of bias and what not.
• 54" Cylinder rules - Seriously, does anyone even think these are enforced?
• Cycle Time - Refs need some time to deliberate. Especially in eliminations. Teams need time to ask questions. Field Supervisors need to recognize this. (I'm just gonna duck preemptively as I just suggested fewer matches)

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

[*]54" Cylinder rules - Seriously, does anyone even think these are enforced?

For the cylinder rule, I can tell you the refs do their very best. Through the three events I was LRI for (Lake Superior, North Star, and MSHSL tournament) the refs did ask me to go back and double check a few robots at each event to ensure they were compliant in a certain configuration. I also know that the refs were concerned about a couple of the robots at MSHSL last weekend when they climbed. We had two robots that basically hooked on and fell over horizontal - the refs borrowed my tape measure and sharpie (the LRI vest hold just about everything imaginable) and made marks on the auto line tape so they could tell where 54" from the pyramid was. I know this penalty got called at least once after that!

But, you do bring up a very good point. There are rules like the 54" diameter cylinder that fall into a sort of "gray area" between reffing it on the field and inspecting it in the pits. That said, they are usually created very intentionally. For example, without that rule in this game, it would be possible for a single robot to grab onto the pyramid and expand out to blockade one half of the field (both inside and outside the pyramid). Now, what happens if two robots on the same alliance do this during autonomous mode? Does it count as blockading the field (20-pt technical, but completely prevents the other alliance from scoring discs)? If one of the opposing robots hits them, it's interfering with their climb, giving them a technical plus 30 points. Without the 54" rule, this could be a viable (and boring) strategy for an alliance, depending on the third robot!

[rwkling1]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

The perception of a problem is equally as damaging as an actual problem. Simply because one has never refereed does not mean they can't have a perception of a problem. I didn't see this thread as too much criticizing a person. I viewed it more as asking for clarification... it also led to Siri's question (below) which is a good thing.

(I will admit, the title comes across a little critical but my impression was that it was not intended in that manner)





The primary problems I see (as one who has never been a ref but has a fair amount of experience with FIRST games)

• "Intent" rules - "consequential", "intentional", "make every effort" are all vague terms and leave refs open to perceptions of bias. Rules need to be black and white. if X then Y
• Blind Spots on Field - if the ref can't see the area of the field they are responsible for how can they ref it?
• Too many things to watch - Climbing this year? I'm SURE there were teams out there with invalid climbs. How many times did that penalty get called? Making people watch that much at once leads to calls getting missed. Leads to calls of bias and what not.
• 54" Cylinder rules - Seriously, does anyone even think these are enforced?
• Cycle Time - Refs need some time to deliberate. Especially in eliminations. Teams need time to ask questions. Field Supervisors need to recognize this. (I'm just gonna duck preemptively as I just suggested fewer matches)

I had no intent in criticizing, just trying to get confirmation whether I was right or wrong. The title is a little harsh, but it's the first thing that came to my mind.

Also, if you skip to 18:40, you can see one team extending way above 60 inches, with no intent of blocking anyone, or being shoved out of their auto zone.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

For the cylinder rule, I can tell you the refs do their very best.

I know they do. I was kinda wishlisting for rule types to be avoided in the future. I understand why the rules are there. I just hope refs are instructed not to call violations unless they are flagrant (which violates another of my wishlist items). 54.5" ? Who cares. 85"? Yeah, that's a violation.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by rwkling1

Also, if you skip to 18:40, you can see one team extending way above 60 inches, with no intent of blocking anyone, or being shoved out of their auto zone.

Given the camera angle, I don't think we can say what was happening to their left prior to them putting the blocker up. Regardless, that deserves a 3 point penalty, not a Technical - from what we can see on the video, they were moving towards their auto line. I don't think one brief instance of a couple of seconds constitutes "continuous or repeated violations" to qualify for a technical. Given the score results, it does look like the refs missed that single 3 point penalty (there's a lot going on the field, the nearby refs may have been focused on another area)...but as it was 70-87, 3 points wouldn't have made a difference.

[rwkling1]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Given the camera angle, I don't think we can say what was happening to their left prior to them putting the blocker up. Regardless, that deserves a 3 point penalty, not a Technical - from what we can see on the video, they were moving towards their auto line. I don't think one brief instance of a couple of seconds constitutes "continuous or repeated violations" to qualify for a technical. Given the score results, it does look like the refs missed that single 3 point penalty (there's a lot going on the field, the nearby refs may have been focused on another area)...but as it was 70-87, 3 points wouldn't have made a difference.

The ironic part is, it did happen multiple times, at least 3 or 4 times, it's just that you can't see it. So in that case it would not have been a 3 point penalty, rather a 20, so yes, it does make a difference

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by rwkling1

The ironic part is, it did happen multiple times, at least 3 or 4 times, it's just that you can't see it. So in that case it would not have been a 3 point penalty, rather a 20, so yes, it does make a difference

The key there being that we can't see it. The camera simply doesn't show the right part of the field the entire time for any of us to be sure there were more violations. I've seen situations before where one or two individuals had themselves convinced "A" happened, but when video became available it was actually "B". Short of memory ("eye witness reports" are the least trusted evidence by police... get 3 people to watch something and interview them afterwards, and you'll end up hearing 4 completely different stories of what happened), we simply can't see that anything other than a 3 point penalty was missed.