[moderated]: A call for an end to inconsistency (sticking up for G25)

[Al Skierkiewicz]

I need to weigh in here as a participant, team member and volunteer at the Midwest Regional. The position of referee is a very hard and subjective position in a competition where there is a rule book the size of a small town yellow pages. What you see from the stands and what you see from a webcast is nothing compared to the vantage point you would have on the floor next to the field. I spent some time behind the field during this regional, some time behind a players station in the stands and some time high up with my team and I can tell you there is a vastly different view of the game from those three positions. The aggressive play rule comes from the discussion on this forum and others following last year's season. It has been discussed at length and the referees trained to know the difference between aggressive defense and aggressive play aimed at damage only. Anyone in this competition for more than a year knows that robots will sustain damage, have parts ripped off, break drive parts etc. When an aggressive robot leaves the field and it is littered with parts, that has crossed the line. During one such match in Chicago, the referees collected a double handful of broken parts from the field.
At the start of this season, I wasn't sure that this would turn into an exciting game, but it has. I didn't think aggressive play would be an issue with a populated field (6 robots and nine goals) but there are robots out there that can and will drive hard enough to inflict serious and fatal damage on another robot. Pushing doesn't create damage but serves just as well in a defensive mode as ramming but there is a significant difference that only those up close may be able to determine.
Now, having been at two regionals back to back, and seeing the same people volunteering at both, I can tell you they are very tired. (I am exhausted) Do you know of any officials that will ref for two full days? Does any official receive the full immersion form of training that our refs do? As each match goes by, they get better and better. By finals on Saturday afternoon I think you have the best staff you can get.
I guess I am trying to say (in a Ken Leung, long post kind of way) that it is too easy to make a judgment call from the stands and be wrong. Making a judgment call on a webcast video should be like pro wrestling, for entertainment purposes only.

I can tell you we have the utmost respect for the teams we played. The finals matches with 107, 79, 648 were some of the toughest I have ever seen and they are the greatest competitors, playing the game well with a wonderful strategy that almost won. I would be happy to be in an alliance with any of them.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by sw293

The final in Philly was turned on an excessive rough play call, where the refs accused the Long Island Regional champion and Chairmans winner and former Regional Sportsmanship Award winner of intentionally tipping another robot.

I think we should be careful of using words like "accused" here. If things were perfect, and they aren't, I don't think a ref's opinion of intentional vs. unintentional should ever have to play a role in his/her decision, if the rule clearly defines what is wrong and what isn't, and the governing body of the competition makes it clear that one and only one interpretation of that rule is acceptable. Sometimes, kids make mistakes, and they tip over a robot unintentionally, or they swing their tetras over a player station, accidentally causing a student to be struck. They should be penalized for their mistakes in just the same manner as the team that just went out, locked on to a target, and hit the gas, or drove around like hellions who didn't care where their arms or their tetras swung, and they should accept their mistake and the consequences that resulted from making it. Ideally, the only application of referee judgment would come in deciding which teams to warn/watch/disqualify because of their continued reckless play and which teams to leave alone because they know the kids made a simple mistake.

There is naturally going to be a fair amount of judgment the refs have to make when assessing penalties based upon G25, but it amazes me that the range of interpretations is so very widespread. Sometimes, the aggressor is so obviously over the top that they tip or damage another robot, yet no penalty is called. Other times, the aggressor plays defense according to the strict wording of the rule, yet they are flagged. G25 seems very clear to me, and I simply cannot understand why all these different interpretations of this and other rules have been permitted to be exercised at these events.

I've said this before - refs at any one event tend to be consistent with their rulings and generally call the game true to what is discussed in that event's initial refereeing meetings; it's the inconsistency from event to event that is the true driving force behind this frustration for so many.

What is so different about calling this year's game compared to last year's that is causing so much widespread heartache and disappointment for people? It boggles my mind. Last year's game was so memorable for me because I CANNOT remember one time where the refs and their calls became the focal point of the event - it was all about the great driving and hanging and ball gathering and Human Player accuracy - it was all about the excitement.

It's just so....disappointing to see so many discussions of this nature pop up this season. It's also disheartening to see the actions of these volunteer refs placed squarely in the spotlight of these debates. On the whole, they are not the direct source of all this frustration for teams. They are just trying to do their jobs the best they can based upon the game, rules, and communication FIRST has given them. I continue to be amazed that someone can't simply fix this problem - how hard is it to just communicate?! Perhaps there are forces and roadblocks at work behind the scenes that I will simply never comprehend, but I continue to hold out hope that the dedicated people at FIRST will find a way to make things better. Bharat was right - let's hope the championship is the place where FIRST makes things right, for if such field-to-field inconsistency as we've seen so far is permitted to plague the playing fields at Atlanta, where the separation of the venues is a matter of feet, not hundreds of miles, I shudder to think of the team reactions and repercussions that would result.

[meaubry]

To all whom post -
It is obvious that this year the interpretation of the rules (G25) has caused a bit of controversy. So I actually expected that issues like this would come up throughout the regional season.
Please keep in mind that it is NOT productive to post negative remarks about setting examples and such - everyone, and I mean everyone, is entitled to their opinion. Let's not forget that mentors are human too and they also have opinions that might not match that of the FIRST leadership - FIRST can handle criticism - let's just be careful in the manner in which we do so.
Now - back to the specifics about this thread.
Calling for an end of inconsistency is asking for the impossible. People are inconsistent, and the interpretation of this rule is inconsistent. As many have pointed out, what one determines as overaggressive someone else may not.
The rule itself allows the ref's to decide from match to match, day to day, regional to regional. Unfortunately, there is no clear line that defines when a team is being "overly aggressive" - nor even just plain "aggressive". Words like ramming, high speed ramming, pushing high, pushing low, pinning, and such don't do justice to the intent behind the action.
That is why the refs are in a bad situation. They must interpret the action, and then the intent. The results are obvious (tipped over robots, parts scattered over the field, broken machines) - so afterwords the equation is not always balanced. Those teams that designed machines so that the intent is hidden by the shape of the machine have no excuses - the drivers and more so the coaches of teams that play defense as part of their strategy must realize that in doing so they are at risk (offensive scoring machines draw less attention in penalty situations - they are more often the victim of overzealous driving)
What can or should be done?
Define what is considered allowable defensive actions. Post them on ever teams table on Thursday. FIRST must make sure everyone that is allowed to call penalties has the same interpretation - use past matches on Thursday when the ref's are trained, to make sure everyone of them is on the same page. I'll call it on the job training using the YMTC method. Also, I'd install the 2nd pair of eyes rule on penalties associated with G25 - two or more ref's need to agree in order for the penalty to stick.
Then, call penalties when those actions take place - starting when the first one is broken and be consistent throughout the tournament.
Sorry about the long post -
Agree or disagree as you'd like - but let's all stay on the high road and not slip back making a bad situation worse.

Mike Aubry

[Beth Sweet]

Ok, I'm going to try to say this as calmly and clearly as I can.

Referees are on the field to make calls. If there weren't judgment calls to be made, then they wouldn't be out there. By placing them there, we are saying that we will trust their judgement. They are closer than we are, they can see better. Yes, they may make bad calls, but they're human and there will always be calls where they will have to trust what they think they saw. Obviously, the rules cannot outline every possible defensive situation for clarification and must leave much of it up the discretion of the refs.

Now to the comments by those who were not satisfied with the referees consistency. Once again, the refs are only human and human error does have an annoying tendancy to upset us from time to time, especially when it's our team or the team we're rooting for or against. Maybe the refs inconsistency was them trying to make things more fair, trying to follow the rules better and do a better job. I almost guarantee you that the refs are not out there to try to ruin things for your team. They are volunteers, they have your best interest in mind.

In summary: Rules allot for human error. If there weren't judgement calls to be made, there wouldn't be referee's. The ref's out there are just trying to do the best job possible. Let's all try to support each other and if there is a problem, let's try to make sure our emotions don't rule our posts, let's let the facts speak for themselves.

[Ryan Dognaux]

Originally Posted by meaubry

What can or should be done?
Define what is considered allowable defensive actions. Post them on ever teams table on Thursday. FIRST must make sure everyone that is allowed to call penalties has the same interpretation - use past matches on Thursday when the ref's are trained, to make sure everyone of them is on the same page. I'll call it on the job training using the YMTC method. Also, I'd install the 2nd pair of eyes rule on penalties associated with G25 - two or more ref's need to agree in order for the penalty to stick.
Then, call penalties when those actions take place - starting when the first one is broken and be consistent throughout the tournament.

This is exactly what needs to be done. G25 needs to be elaborated on with specific definitions in an effort to standardize the ref's calls across all regionals, throughout the entire regional. I would not have a problem with the call at the Midwest Regional had it been called prior to Saturday afternoon.

I forgot to do this in my first post - thank you to the referees. Without you guys, we wouldn't even be having this discussion right now, and that would be a bad thing. Thanks to all who volunteer their time to work these events.

[Collin Fultz]

I will just say this in defense of a few people:

Refs---it was a hard weekend to call and they did their best. It was frustrating sometimes I know, but in the end they are all just people and people make mistakes. There was some discussion of putting an accelerometer on robots and only when your acceleration (F=ma) and thus your force reached a certain level were you disabled. It was, however, decided that first the scoring system should be fixed so we don't have 30 minute delays and then we'll focus on accelerometers

Team 79 --- they did everything they could within the rules and within gracious professionalism to argue the calls during that match. when all was said and done and they knew the call wasn't going to be reversed one mentor said to another "You should go talk to the team and make sure they're ok. Let them know that it isn't the end of the world" or something to that effect in saying "It's a game...let's move on" congrats 79...you know what FIRST is all about

The finals alliance --- you guys put up one heck of a match. let it be known that the beast can be stopped. atlanta should be fun.

Everyone else --- i've never reffed. i've never wanted to ref. it's hard. i suggest (if you're going to complain) that you try it. especially if you're in the midwest...you have a regional within driving distance basically every week and they're always wanting more volunteers.

http://www.usfirst.org/4vol/

[Scott358]

The issue isn’t with the ref’s, but seems to be within rule G25. As it states in the first sentence of the rule, it is in place to deter "Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS". This rule seems to try to judge intent, which makes it a rule that is very difficult to properly enforce. This puts the ref's in a very difficult spot (hence the many calls for a rule change which would allow for more consistent application).

As a mentor for a team that was responsible for the disqualification of a complete alliance during the first match of the Philly finals, we feel horrible for causing the loss of this match to our alliance partners. As a Regional Chairman's Award winning team from the week before, I can assure you that we never, ever had a strategy aimed solely at destroying, damaging, tipping over, or entangling. In this specific instance, we were merely trying to leave the opponents end of the field and they were trying to stop us, and they tipped over when we collided. I strongly feel this is “normal game play” (as quoted in rule G25).

At this point, all we can do as mentors is handle the situation with gracious professionalism, and have the kids understand that humans make calls, some of which you'll agree with, and some you won't, but you've got to move on in a constructive way. Don’t blame the ref’s, but if you feel the rule is wrong, find ways to make a change (like perhaps discussing it within this forum).

As Dean reminded us during the opening on Saturday, we're all very lucky to be among the few who play this game. With that, I would call for a better defined rule that can be more consistently applied (especially since this one has/can have such a huge impact), but either way, we're looking forward to Atlanta!!!

Scott 358
Engineer/Mentor
Festo Hauppauge Robotic Eagles
2005 Philly Finalist
2005 SBPLI Long Island Chairman’s Award
2005 SBPLI Long Island Champions (Thanks to team 527 and 870)

[Matt Adams]

I'm really glad that Travis took the time to make this post. He made a call for fairness in refereeing. I think that this is something worthy of discussing after some rulings at the Midwest Regional.

What's been said many times is that penalties need to be spelled out more exactly to teams and the audience, especially in the finals. At the Chicago regional, the 10 point penalty, which I assume was a rule G25 violation, was repeatedly called "over-aggressiveness" to the crowd. This is (unintentionally) deceiving.

Let's read rule G25:

Originally Posted by Rule G25 after Team Update 15, with emphasis by Matt Adams

Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not in the spirit of FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed. However, Triple Play is a highly interactive contact game. Some tipping, entanglement, and damage may occur as a part of normal game play. If the tipping, entanglement, or damage occurs where it is not a part of normal game play, at the referee’s discretion, a 10-point penalty will be assessed, and the offending team/ROBOT may be disqualified from that match.

For discretionary penalties, I think that it is fair to require referees (not announcer) to discuss the rule and action that team(s) specifically performed in violation. Especially in the finals, when tensions are high, and especially when it changes the outcome of a match.

In the case of G25, this would mean naming the team that tipped, entangled or damaged their specific opponent.

The announcement would go something along the lines of,

"It was deemed, after discussion by the referees, that there was a rule violation in this match. Team A, was in violation of Rule G25, by performing a strategy aimed solely at tipping over team B. It's alliance is hence penalized 10 points."

The announcement at the Midwest regional was similar to,

"The references have assessed a ten point penalty to the blue alliance for over-aggressiveness."

Given this, I think it's fair to expect some to be hurt, confused, and upset. Hence, in the finals, and in the case of match-altering penalties, I think requiring a bit more specifics from referees to the entire crowd will go a long way by making "discretionary" penalties seem much less so.

Matt

[Chris Hibner]

What I saw from the Midwest regional (as a participant), the referees did a very good job. I thought the officiating was very consistent.

The referees at Midwest called all fouls by the letter of the rules (except for G25 which is really a judgement call). They disabled robots for breaking the plane whether is was by 1 inch or 1 foot - they made sure the rule was very black and white in its enforcement. I appreciate that. I thought it was called very consistently with no favoritism.

Just to let everyone know, some of the calls could have hurt my alliance. Some did hurt my alliance. However, I thought all of the calls were fair. Even if I don't agree with a call, I can live with a referees decision since they are human and they have a tough job.

I summary: I think they are doing a better job this year than in past years and overall they are doing a good job, especially given the game. And everyone needs to keep one thing in mind: teams that REALLY deserve to win will find ways to overcome a marginal officiating decision. Also, teams that REALLY deserved to win will try not to put themselves in that position.

[Swampdude]

First I'd say, Krunch played an awesome defense and won that match. Second I think FIRST needs to clarify some of these rules mentioned. I've been a coach at one regional this season and some of these rules are not clear.

1st rule: Breaking the plane. Is it when the base of the tetra goes over the top of the drivers station? If it is, Midwest was ruling incorrectly because those tetra bases looked lower than the top of the walls - thereby not crossing over. If it's a tetra whose tip is above the top of the wall there's going to be a whole lot of disabling.

2nd rule: coaches crossing the starting line after the start. We can do that, right? I'm getting mixed answers on that. At UCF someone said they heard you couldn't, then said they just meant don't cross before the start of the match. If they make the mentors stand 2 feet behind the drivers you can't communicate properly (and I can't choke them either)

3rd: On video in the disputed match here, can someone show me where the aggressiveness is? I saw this as text book legit defense played above the belt. This is how I would train my drivers to defend. Now if it's not legal, why?

Clarification on these and I'm sure a few other things will solve these disputes. It shouldn't be a judgment call. It can be clearly laid out what constitutes penalties/disablements. I can't understand the justification of all the disabling at MAWR. That play looked the same as everywhere else. We're all in very little danger standing behind those walls. If one gets beyond the top and over the wall and poses a risk then that's the time to disable. But if they're close and then pull away - I don't see the point. Especially after the fact. All the disabling happened when teams were out in the field of play and nowhere near harming anyone. Or effective defense that meets the written criteria of acceptable interaction should be given the benefit by default unless proven to have negative impact (my opinion).

Anyhow, I thank the refs for their contributions. I apologize for all of us for the fuss. I know you understand folks point of view. It's not an easy job. You don't get thanked for the right calls, but you definitely hear from us on the disputable ones. Don't take this wrong, you guys are a huge imperative part of FIRST - THANK YOU!

BTW, good job 71, 111, and 537

[Kevin Sevcik]

Arguments of getting it or not getting it and of disappointing and frustrating teenagers aside, we have to ask ourselves one simple question: What kind of example are these inconsistencies and mid-season rule changes setting for the students that we're trying to inspire?

FIRST is an organization built around the idea of inspiring students to become engineers and make a difference in the world wherever they can. As has been repeatedly stated, it's about changing the culture. What kind of culture are we trying to move towards if the FIRST organization can't train refs to make halfway consistent calls between regionals? What does it tell our students if these bad calls can be shrugged off "because the refs are just volunteers"? I'm purely a volunteer mentor on my team, and I still hold myself accountable for mistakes I make. I'm sure Habitat for Humanity would accept responsibility if one of their houses fell down from poor workmanship. Telling students to shrug off obvious mistakes and oversights made by FIRST as life lessons and such teaches them nothing about responsibility.

Don't get me wrong. I'm proud of FIRST for stepping up and accepting responsibility for the other problems they've had this year. They should continue to do so and make every attempt to prevent these problems from occuring in the future.

For instance, G25 was purportedly put in the rules because of overaggressive play last year. Why not make a short video of examples of overaggressiveness from last year? That would give refs a baseline comparison for this year. You could make an addendum from video of pre-ship scrimmages and the first week regionals. With those two videos in hand, refs would have a firm baseline for making these judgement calls, and we would likely see much more consistency.

[sw293]

Originally Posted by Aidan F. Browne

Whoa! You are way off base here. The refs are not idicting or accusing anyone -- they are doing their job of impartially enforcing the rules.

You are missing my point. When a ref says that a team intentionally tipped another robot, they are declaring that in their best judgment, the team played so dirty and committed such a serious violation the spirit of gracious professionalism that the alliance doesn't deserve a single point it may have earned in the match. We are not talking about a ten point penalty. This is a call that refs should make only if they are convinced that the play was intentional, not if they think it was probably intentional.

[Ryan F.]

In my belief, a lot of the problems here just came from this game being too hard to referee, and the referee’s not completely knowing the rules. Too many things were happening at once for the ref's to keep track of, but still some of it could have been preventable. I will admit that I was pretty appalled by the penalty against 79 in the Midwest finals. They were simply pushing another robot away from where they it wanted to go, hardly overaggressive to me. It's like calling a questionable foul in the last seconds of a basketball game. In such a match, you should let the players play. Another issue that came to my attention though was the disabling of robots. During qualification our team was told we would be disabled because we crossed the plane of the field outside of the driver’s station. We were forced to explain the rule to the ref so we weren't disabled, a bad use of the 2 minutes. This just highlighted that issue for me.

Overall though it was a good regional, and despite my few complaints I appreciate those who were willing to be the referee's.

[Barnzy107]

While I'm somewhat unhappy with the judges call yesterday, I do feel that overall the event came out better than could possibly have been hoped for. I wont lie and say I wasn't dissappointed, and the whole alliance (79, 107, 648) was upset with the judges because they "knew" they had gotten the shaft, which may or may not have been true. But after thinking about it for a few minutes, I realized that this was the best way it could have gone. I realized it when team 107 from Holland Christian went out and congradulated the other teams, not saying things like, that stinks, it should have been us. They went and shook hands with team members and mentors alike, congradulating them. This day was right between Good Friday and Easter Sunday. And they as a Christian team, couldn't have come away with anything better. They were able to demonstrate our Christian attitude by graciously accepting their loss, and not being angry at the refs for their judgement call, which may or may not have been in error, it doesn't matter. They got the award for Good Sportsmanship, and on Easter weekend, that's better than winning. That's something that they can take back to their school along with great tales of duking it out with some of the best robots in the nation. So I'd like to salute the alliance of teams 79, 107, and 648 for their great show, along with the second place and first place teams.
Also props to the Brazilians for coming all the way out, and also being able to be happy with where they ended up.

[Cory]

You can never clarify G25 enough that it will eliminate all subjectivity on the referees part.

And as a result of that, you can never have consitency from regional to regional as to what resulting calls when G25 comes into play will be, unless you send the exact same ref crew to all 30 regionals, which is impossible.

As long as humans are involved, we will have this debate to the end of eternity.