The refs should know the rules, shouldn't they?

[Madison]

Okay...here's the situation. . . .keep in mind, there's nothing personal against the teams involved...I quite like them both.

During the quarterfinals, we (810) were in an alliance competing against 340, 639, and another robot who's number escapes me.

The first round of three, we won. The opposing alliance was 340 and 639.
The second match, we lost, but the opposing alliance played with 340 and 639 again! I was pretty sure this was wrong.

Now, rule T11, reads, "Each team in an alliance must compete in at least one match in each series."

My interpretation of this rule went like this -

You're only assured two rounds. There exists every possibility that a team can win in two rounds. As such, to satisfy the wording of the above rule, a team must be switched out of both alliances.

I brought this to the head refs attention, and received the runaround, basically. They reasoned that, if the second alliance lost again, they would've been in violation of rule T11, and be DQ'd. But, it was academic, because they'd already lost. If they won, there would be three matches, and they'd be forced to switch out a robot in the third match.

I argued that this, while fair to the 340/639 alliance, may put our alliance at a disadvantage. It does have an affect on our strategy. Particularly, though we won the first match against that pair, it was very close. Close enough, in fact, that we lost the second match. That may not have happened were they to switch out a robot as we were required to.

After about ten minutes of rather unsuccessfully trying to get the ref. to see my point, I was, essentially, dismissed. In essence, I was told that there was a change in one of the team updates. I didn't have the updates handy, so I couldn't produce this change. As such, my concern was promptly ignored.

Now, the main I have. . . I came home tonight and double checked for this update, just to see if I was mistaken about my inclination.

The update reads, "The following text is added after the first sentence of T11: 'Therefore, the team that did not compete in the first match of a series should compete in the second match of the series.'"

So, not only was my interpretation correct, but it was clarified in a team update.

Why, then, was I given the runaround, and ultimately told that the ruling was something totally contradictory to what it really is?

I understand they're human, and they make mistakes. I think I made a good case for myself, and I think that the whole situation was handled poorly. In the end, it became irrelevant as we won the third match. But, I thought that this may happen again, and so I wanted to bring it up here.

[Amy Beth]

M~
I agree that the refs were mistaken about the rule. Nevertheless, the fact remains that they are the refs, and if they make a wrong call, then guess what, they're right no matter how well you argue their reasoning. Still, i hope that there are referees reading this right now. Hopefully this doesn't happen again at one of the other regionals.

On the same lines, is there any way for people to send a message directly to the referees between comps, and that referees could message directly among themselves, so that we can prevent the same things happening over and over again. It seems like that would help a whole lot.
pp2lfunC,
Amy

[Madison]

Originally posted by AmyBeth330
M~
I agree that the refs were mistaken about the rule. Nevertheless, the fact remains that they are the refs, and if they make a wrong call, then guess what, they're right no matter how well you argue their reasoning. Still, i hope that there are referees reading this right now. Hopefully this doesn't happen again at one of the other regionals.

Like I said. . .I understand they're human, and I certainly wouldn't fault them for a judgement call. That is, whether or not something was entangled, or if a robot was in the endzone. This, though, is *not* a judgement call. This is plain and simple, black and white rules sorts of things.

I was just a little disappointed in the way I was treated, and I just wanted to make others aware of the discrepancy so they can look out for it in the future.

After all, if I expected them to be perfect, I should've known what the update said without having to come home, right?

[Chris Dibble]

Yeah, I hear you on the referee runaround bit. If you look at the post "Controversy at Rutgers," we got runaround from refs on a bad call. There should definitely be some widespread consistency. I don't know what, but something. Maybe I'm mistaken - please correct me if so.

Chris

[ColleenShaver]

I posted about this, because after watching the Buckeye Regional, I noticed they had done the same thing there. In Buckeye, they were making the winning team switch, not the losing (of the first match).

I shouldn't say they.... that's what the announcer kept repeating, I don't know what kind of enforcing, if any, was occuring.

In VCU, we played by the written rules.. expecting to see the same in San Jose.

[Chief'sDad]

In both the Buckeye and the Great Lakes, it was announced that only the alliance that won the match would have to put in the third robot for the next match. And that's the way it was played.

[Anthony S.]

I do agree that the refs should have made the teams switch out. At Lonestar I saw the teams switch out everytime in the finals. I even saw an alliance get Disqualified for having an extra person in the alliance station! So that shows that they are paying attention to small stuff like that. I also wonder, where do the refs come from and what are they required to do before becoming refs. I know at Lonestar the announcer said something about taking off their job at footlocker. I don't know if he was serious or joking. But I think the refs should be required to study the game rules more than once and have a quiz on the game just to make sure they know what they are doing. Hopefully this won't happen at nats. Good Luck everyone!!

[patrickrd]

While sitting in the stands watching finals I was surprised like you were Michael to see both my team and 340 taking the field for the second consecutive match. I had been under the impression that you must switch as well. However the refs did explicitly announce that you only need to switch if the alliance wins. As long as they're consistant I guess it's alright.

Congratulations on a good matchup!

- Patrick

[Stephanie]

It seems to me that there have been many many many complaints about referee's calls, and their deviance from the rulebook and updates. Did anything similar happen last year, or the year before? or is it unique to this game?
I am curioius to know if this is a regular thing that I should look forward to for next year as well

[meaubry]

As "Chief's Dad" posted earlier, At both the Buckeye and Great Lakes Regionals ONLY the winning alliance had to swap a member out. Sure wish there was someway of knowing if this is the correct or incorrect practice. Maybe it was interpretted incorrectly at those 2 and evryone else was right?? Who knows for sure??? Maybe we can compile How rule T11 was interpreted at each regional and ask for clarification before we all get to nationals - I think we are looking for consistancy and understanding regarding this rule. FIRST owes us that much.

[Perseus]

all the referees are volunteers. they do not always know the rules. Our team, 365, was concerned about the entanglement rule, so we sent a representative to make sure the refs knew it. If you are concerened, i suggest you do thesame at your next competition. But do it in a nice way, screamng at the refs will get you nowhere

[Madison]

Originally posted by Perseus
all the referees are volunteers. they do not always know the rules.

Forgive me, then, but why are they refs!? The refs at basketball game know the rules. The refs at a hockey game know the rules.

Anyway, after the update, the rules reads, "Each team in an alliance must compete in at least one match in each series . . . Therefore, the team that did not compete in the first match of a series should compete in the second match of the series."

While I agree the original wording could be ambiguous, the new wording is most certainly not.

If an announcement is made that indicates a change in a rule, at least it should be consistent from one regional to the next. In this case, though, it seems as if the announcement was made without regard to the actual rule, and rather as a clarification of what the referee's assumed to be true.

Either way, I'd just like to know which way it'll be for Nationals.

[GregT]

In the 639 pit we too were suprised to be put out 2 rounds in a row, but we checked it with the refs and they ok'ed it, the announcer even said that only the winning team has to rotate their robots.

I think one reason you may have been unsuccessful was the attitude you took towards the judges. When a judge says no thats it- NO, you don't continue yelling and argueing (I don't know if you relized it, but you were).

Another rule says that all of the refs decisions are final, the fact we were legally checked in and on the field was enough to make it legal.

It was confusing for us too, we were told by our alliance captain to go on, we checked with the refs to make sure it was ok, we went out. You guys played a great game- that first match was really close.

Greg

[Madison]

Originally posted by GregT
In the 639 pit we too were suprised to be put out 2 rounds in a row, but we checked it with the refs and they ok'ed it, the announcer even said that only the winning team has to rotate their robots.

I think one reason you may have been unsuccessful was the attitude you took towards the judges. When a judge says no thats it- NO, you don't continue yelling and argueing (I don't know if you relized it, but you were).

For me, this is a confusing issue. While I understand the need for a referee's ruling to be final, in this instance, it's absolutely clear that they were disregarding published rules regarding the game. Further, by pointing me toward a team update that corroborated *my* argument shows that they were ill prepared and unaware of the rules. To that effect, while I may have been a bit emphatic (my team had a long, long day), I don't think I was wrong to pursue the issue.

It was confusing for us too, we were told by our alliance captain to go on, we checked with the refs to make sure it was ok, we went out. You guys played a great game- that first match was really close.

Again, it's nothing personal against your alliance, and we did play an awesome set of matches.

This was less about the outcome of the match and more about getting a consistent ruling that matches the rules. If it's an official rule change, make it official, and adopt it at every regional. If it's not, the referees need to be better informed of the rules. This year, moreso than I can remember in past years, many of the rulings FIRST has made about the legality of certain strategies, parts, rules, etc. has been totally disregarded at the competitions. It's as if the onsite crews are using a totally different rulebook than what I received in January. . . at least, in some instances.

[Mike Norton]

The refs at KSC were pretty much the same as the ones you talk about.

But we ran into two problems one was a team should of been DQ for ripping the rug. the ref said it didn't matter because we won anyways. We got a 0 score because they did not score any points. But it was only me that talk to the ref and once he gave me the answer I said thank you and moved on.

The second one was we clearly won the match but they score the match wrong. My team wanted to run up and yell at the ref but I sent them to the pits and I took The mentor from the other team with me to the head ref and stated our case. they reviewed the match and saw we did win and it was a error on there part so they changed it. we did not yell we asked nicely and we kept the highly angry students away. I think by doing this the refs do listen and if they tell you something that you don't like bite your lip and move on. that is the beast of competiting.


The ref do have a hard time with this. and it could cost you the regional or the national win. But it will show more to the students how you react. If you know you should of won then so be it. the kids feel better if you explain it ot them and you can move on. But if you get mad and blame the refs and everybody goes away mad and not wanting to play again.


So talk to the Refs and explain to them what you want in a very short statement. and when they give you a answer just say thank you and move on to the next match.