Let's hear it for the Refs !

[headlight]

Originally Posted by alicen

When rules are written "FOUL if INTENTIONAL" and then I have .01 seconds to decide if that was intentional, which foul/tech foul/YC/RC to give, look down to hit the button on the panel, radio my head ref to inform them, and still watch everything else going on in my area, I'm gonna mess up once in a while.

Oh completely, the rules this year had a fantastic amount of subjective conditions attached to them.

I'm sorry, but yes we are. We have to work as a TEAM to try our best to make good calls, get everything right, and provide the best experience possible for all teams at an event.[/quote]

My phrasing was poor, I should have used the term "player", "competitor", "contestant", or "alliance" instead to make the meaning even more clear. I hoped that the rest of that paragraph would have provided sufficient context for the use of the word "team".

Originally Posted by alicen

Refs are an extension of the field in a weird sort of way, but the field also breaks sometimes. And under certain circumstances that means a match is replayed. Like broken field bits, refs can "break" too and mess up. Sometimes this means a score/penalty/foul/etc is changed after the fact.

I completely agree. However, I think the instances of the refs changing a call are significantly rarer than the refs making a poor call. Its a shame and I understand that the refs are doing the best with the resources they have, which is why I think the refs need more resources (as described in the last two paragraphs of my post).

Originally Posted by alicen

I think you're meaning influencing as refs missing crossings for example, or calling are lots of fouls? I'll say that yes, a ref can influence a game heavily by missing crossings, but I won't say that it's the ref's fault if many fouls are called. I put that one squarely on the GDC for the game, or the team for their choice in strategy

You got it! Missed crossings as well as weird calls regarding crossings and boulder possession were probably the most irritating parts of this game.

I am going to assume that you didn't quote my last two paragraphs because you agree with them. From my perspective the refs are often setup to fail by the requirements of their role, the rules, and the regulations governing their position. I hope that someday referees are able to be used to their full potential, making the subjective calls necessary to influence the way the game plays and keep it fair and fun for all entities involved. Until then, I'm going to have to keep explaining to parents that the question box is really just for clarification, not contesting a penalty. And that yes, I know they missed it, I know you got it on video but unfortunately it doesn't matter because refs don't review video, yes that is an actual rule, I'm sorry, please don't go talk to them, it really won't change anything.

Every year the refs put up with one of the most difficult jobs on the field. I appreciate their contribution and hope that someday there is a game where their jobs are are appropriate in scope and setup for widespread success.

[draconar]

Background: I've been a ref since 2008 at different events with different ref crews and head refs. Before that I was a student on a team for three years (Hi Alicen!), including time on the drive team.

I appreciate the sentiment from the OP, but I think it's perfectly reasonable and understandable for people to post questions about close calls. Most of the discussion is constructive, and as a ref I'm interested to see how the rules are interpreted by teams.

That said, in many posts relating to questionable calls, I see comments like "refs don't care about the teams" or the idea that refs are out to call as many fouls as possible. FIRST is a big place, but I've never met a ref with that attitude. From the refs I've volunteered with, I get the same attitude: I want teams to succeed. I want them to play fairly. I want to give teams who have put in the effort to understand the rules the game they deserve. And I hate when penalties swing a close match.

At the same time, I'm not perfect. I'm not a professional -- although I do put in hours of training and take time off work because I believe in FIRST's values. Have I missed calls this year (and other years)? Absolutely. Did I miss a few crossings over a few hundred matches (not even counting the poorly designed sally port)? Yes.

Originally Posted by headlight

However, I think the instances of the refs changing a call are significantly rarer than the refs making a poor call.

After the match is over, this is probably true. In most cases, changing a call means replaying a match, which is suboptimal for everybody involved (not that a bad call is optimal). And when games have lots of fouls, sometimes you don't even remember what foul you called a few minutes before, much less all the circumstances. At the same time, what people don't see are the internal discussions where a foul isn't assessed, or refs reconsidering a scenario during a match and deciding to "un-call" a penalty. I've flagged things, entered a foul, and then thought for a few seconds before deciding it was legal or ambiguous enough to give the benefit of the doubt.

One last thing, to those who say that people don't target refs personally or that refs aren't driven away because of negative reactions: Several years ago, I was at an event where we DQed an alliance in an elimination match because the rules were strict that year and that's what they prescribed. It was a close call, and the head ref (and the rest of the crew) were booed from the stands. Shortly afterwards a couple CD threads were started attacking the refs for the call. The experience contradicted everything FIRST stands for (although the team later apologized), and if it had been my first year I definitely wouldn't have come back.
It isn't being thin-skinned to be affected when people tell you you're doing a bad job. And even less so when you're doing that job because you want students and this organization to succeed.

[alicen]

Originally Posted by headlight

I completely agree. However, I think the instances of the refs changing a call are significantly rarer than the refs making a poor call. Its a shame and I understand that the refs are doing the best with the resources they have, which is why I think the refs need more resources (as described in the last two paragraphs of my post).

Yes and no. While refs aren't supposed to talk about the calls that they do or don't make and the discussions that are had about whether or not to make specific calls, there's almost always a lot going on "behind the scenes" where the refs may change a call even without a team challenging it.
I completely agree that refs need more resources, and said since kickoff that we were going to be shortchanged with the number of refs watching the field

Originally Posted by headlight

I am going to assume that you didn't quote my last two paragraphs because you agree with them. From my perspective the refs are often setup to fail by the requirements of their role, the rules, and the regulations governing their position.

You are correct, I agreed with what you said, I mostly just wanted to clarify a few points. And yes, refs are set up to fail, the position is one of very little mercy, but it's sooo much more fun to be right where the action is

Also, Hi Michael! I didn't know you were still reffing! You should come on down to one of the new PCH District Events sometime!

[Chief Hedgehog]

Thank you Refs and all the rest of the Volunteers that make FIRST happen!

[Madison]

Originally Posted by alicen

I completely agree that refs need more resources, and said since kickoff that we were going to be shortchanged with the number of refs watching the field

Do you believe you were able to convey this information to people who could make a difference? Was your feedback acknowledged or acted upon?

[alicen]

Originally Posted by Madison

Do you believe you were able to convey this information to people who could make a difference? Was your feedback acknowledged or acted upon?

Nobody has ever asked me that!

I'm lucky enough that volunteering for FIRST is a family affair (mom is head ref, dad is scorekeeper), so we talk openly about many, many things. One of which was that we felt that there would not be enough refs on the field to make reffing easier. (We've said the same thing for other games during other years as well). My family agrees with me, but we've all been doing this long enough that we just do our best to know the rules and make as few bad calls as possible.

There have been a few times throughout our volunteer history where my head ref would throw her hands up and say "I'm doing it this way because it will give the teams a better experience."

I don't believe refs who aren't head refs have a decent avenue to give feedback to FIRST and the GDC on their experience (what was hard, easy, what was not fun, what they would suggest changes for, etc).

In short - no my feedback isn't acknowledged and no, nothing is acted upon.

[bdaroz]

Originally Posted by alicen

I don't believe refs who aren't head refs have a decent avenue to give feedback to FIRST and the GDC on their experience (what was hard, easy, what was not fun, what they would suggest changes for, etc).

In short - no my feedback isn't acknowledged and no, nothing is acted upon.

If anyone from FIRST is lurking... ^^ THIS ^^

Growth in any organization can be a good thing, or very bad, it's all in how it's managed. We all want FIRST to grow, in more play opportunity (i.e. moves to districts), in more teams, more outreach, more fun, and more inspiration. To do that we need more infrastructure, more volunteers and more communication/interaction with FIRST as we hit bumps along the way.

And to all the volunteers... Thank you.

[jvriezen]

Originally Posted by alicen

Nobody has ever asked me that!
I don't believe refs who aren't head refs have a decent avenue to give feedback to FIRST and the GDC on their experience (what was hard, easy, what was not fun, what they would suggest changes for, etc).

Wouldn't feedback for a ref (who is not a head ref) be via the head ref? If you have feedback, the head ref should be able to listen and forward it on. If your feedback is a complaint about the head ref, then the volunteer coordinator would be the appropriate path.

There is always an email or phone call to FIRST HQ as well.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by jvriezen

Wouldn't feedback for a ref (who is not a head ref) be via the head ref? If you have feedback, the head ref should be able to listen and forward it on. If your feedback is a complaint about the head ref, then the volunteer coordinator would be the appropriate path.

There is always an email or phone call to FIRST HQ as well.

As an experienced robot inspector who has also served as an LRI and FTA in the past, I am very comfortable talking with Key Volunteers and VCs directly, if the need arises. Generally I have trusted their judgement to filter feedback and minimize clutter in the communication.

However, new or less experienced volunteers might want a different channel for their feedback, possible an anonymous one. Some such channels already exist, such as the volunteer surveys we are asked to complete. I can also imagine some situations in which "we've always done it this way" could be a very strong filter, essentially squelching feedback from a more recent volunteer whose perspective could be helpful if it were heard by the right people.

My perspective as a referee is much closer to that of a newbie -- I have only reffed for three seasons now at one or two events each season. My experiences (as a volunteer) with head referees have all been positive, but I have heard comments from some others who had different experiences.

[alicen]

Originally Posted by jvriezen

Wouldn't feedback for a ref (who is not a head ref) be via the head ref? If you have feedback, the head ref should be able to listen and forward it on. If your feedback is a complaint about the head ref, then the volunteer coordinator would be the appropriate path.

There is always an email or phone call to FIRST HQ as well.

Oh no, I've never had a complaint about a head ref, all the ones I've worked with are fantastic people (I'm totally not biased )

You're correct in that the head ref is the avenue for giving feedback to HQ, but in my experience, head refs have a heck of a lot to keep track of and don't necessarily log all of the minute things that could be useful feedback.

I personally feel that if HQ asked for feedback from all refs directly they would also be given quite a few ideas on how things could be altered to make everyone's jobs easier.