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

[Jaine Perotti]

I am quite alarmed and frustrated by the inconsistency with which refs are applying G25 and the *overaggressiveness* 10-pt. judgement call FIRST wedged into the rules after they were released.

This issue concerns me too. I think it is ok to be concerned by issues such as this. While it isn't ok to obsess over mistakes that have been made, it is acceptable to examine the events of the past in an effort to improve things for the future. Its not fair when teams at different regionals are judged by different standards, and it is perfectly acceptable to try to review these decisions. This is an incredibly subjective argument over an incredibly subjective debate - a debate which has its roots in things that have been controversial within FIRST for a long time. I am going to take a position that is a balance between what seem to be two extreme postions - (1) that FIRST has let down many teams by being unjust in it's inconsistent rulings, and that these inconsistent rulings MUST stop now, before any more teams become disenfranchised of wins that they deserve... and (2) that referees should never be expected to be perfect, and to criticize them for ruling inconsistently is detrimental because it creates an atmosphere of negativity and sets a bad example to students.

But I am going to stop for a minute -

Maybe I should print out G25 on a banner the size of a freakin' Freightliner and bring it to each competition I attend?

Frankly, you do not get it. You do not get what FIRST is about.

Before we move on in this discussion, I want to ask one thing of all of you. Please don't insinuate negative things against one another, or let your passion for the issues make you go overboard. If we argue too much with one another, and let things get too out of hand, we will have a much harder time coming to a sound consensus on a solution for this problem. And yes, there is a problem - and we all need to acknowledge that. The fact that a respected mentor within FIRST brought the topic forward to be discussed - and the fact that many people agree with him - means that there is some sort of an issue to be addressed. It does not mean that he is right or wrong in his concerns, but it means that there is a grievance to be resolved - a grievance that we should step forward to and try to redress as a team of concerned individuals.

Originally Posted by Billfred

I'll say it--both Aidan and Travis have valid points.

G25, unless there's a consistent plan in place to enforce it, will end in students, mentors, and quite possibly the random spectator off the street having a bad taste in their mouths. If someone gets too angry, they might just take their business to some other contest. You can say good riddance to a team that didn't "get it" all you want--but FIRST still lost a team. In my humble opinion, we want to avoid that.

However, we can't allow folks to harbor negativity over one rule. I've only been in FIRST for two years, but I've heard of some doozies in the past. Time will tell if G25 can join that list of doozies, but in the meantime, remember--it's just a game! These competitions are the sorts of things that only happen three (or for some, six, nine--or twelve or more) days out of the year. As such, the refs will have three (or for some, six, nine--or twelve or more) days of experience. We come together, do our thing, and split. The fewer bad feelings at the end of those days, the better

Thank you Billfred.

It has already been said, but I don't think anyone is setting a bad example to students by asking their fellow FIRSTers to put thier heads together to discuss a problem. A bad example will only be set if they continue to harbor grievances and bad feelings... and leave everyone involved - students, mentors, and parents - with a bad taste in their mouths. Don't let the negativity fester and spread... work constructively for a solution.

...

Back to my opinion -

I believe that in an ideal world, all teams would be judged fairly against the same standards of game play. All teams would be given the same judgement, and all teams would be given just judgement. However, I can't expect things to run as perfectly in the real world. Referees are different from competition to competition, and each referee has their own definition of what "overly-aggressive play" means to them. I agree with what many people have said here already... it is impossible to ask that every team, everywhere experience the same treatment by referees in game play situations.

Originally Posted by Jeff Waegelin

Speaking as a referee (from the Detroit Regional), G25 is a very difficult call to make, because it is, at its heart, a judgement call. Even when you know the rules extremely well, as I do, it is incredibly difficult to make that call, and to keep it consistent, because every situation you witness is different. What may be crystal clear in one situation is clear as mud in another.

In addition, everyone has a slightly different idea of what counts as G25. Some believe that most contact should be eliminated to encourage offense. Other referees take a laissez faire approach, saying "let the teams play."

Jeff offers insight which is important for all of us to pay attention to.

As much as it is important to recognize the human-ness of referees, I agree with others in saying that there is room for improvement. While I will never ask that referees have PERFECT judgement, I would like to ask them to try to get as clear of a universal definition for "agressive play" as possible.

Originally Posted by Jeff Waegelin

So, as you can see, it's not an easy call to make, and an even harder one to make consistently. Is there room to improve on this? Absolutely.

So how is it exactly that we can improve on this? The answer to that question is what I would love to see in the responses to this thread following mine. I want people's ideas - and as FIRSTers we should be fairly good at coming up with innovative ideas - not people's frustration ventings (although there is a time and place to vent frustration...lets just not make it here in this thread).

I will throw an idea into this big pot of idea soup -

What if - directly preceding, and during competition season - there were weekly meetings of referees (not sure how the meetings would work, since refs are from all over the country - maybe a chat room could be set up?) to discuss, and set forth, a general philosophy about what calls to make in different situations. For example... the issue about disabling robots that might drop a tetra over the drive station wall... they could discuss that issue, and come to a consensus as to what counts as "presenting significant danger", and what specific actions should be taken to the offending alliance/team. They could also review decisions that had been made earlier in the week(s), and decide whether or not those actions were appropriate and how they should be alternately dealt with in the future. For example... they could watch sections of video of matches in which robots came close to dropping a tetra over the drivers station wall, see how the referees responded, and decide whether or not that was appropriate. If not appropriate, they could discuss what should have been done, and establish what should be done if a similar condition arises in the future. This could almost be a form of what we call "judicial review" - in which laws are examined, and then interpretations of those laws are developed. We need a set version of how rules should be interpreted - and somehow these interpretations need to become common knowledge among referees.

There are probably flaws in the above idea... for example, setting up the meetings... but perhaps others can build off of it or change it to make an even better idea. Whatever happens, I want to see people offer their input constructively - I want us to move towards a solution. You have already heard my speeches about why arguing is bad, and why negativity needs to stop, so I wont repeat them again. See this as an opportunity to flex your brain muscles... see it as you would see the new game challenge in January. Open your minds, and tackle this problem.... like I know all you robotics nerds can!

Thanks for putting up with this long post,

Jaine

[Barnzy107]

I think that we have to remember that in the end, the competition as a whole was fun, exciting, and that the teams who appear to have gotten the shaft, in the end came out ahead. Team 107 R.O.B.O.T.I.C.S. received the best award that they could have gotten. They came with the goal of witnessing to the people that would be at the Midwest regionals, and with the added remembrance that they were competing for their Christian school on Easter weekend. They received the award for good sportsmanship because after they lost due to a 10 point penalty, they were over congratulating the winning teams. They didn't get mad at the judges and make cat calls at the decision. They showed their Christian colors, and being in an alliance with them, teams 79 and 648 shared in that victory. They made a big statement for Christ Saturday, so while the technicalities get worked out for future competitions, let's remember this weekend and what exactly it is that we're celebrating.

[meaubry]

sw293,
Please be careful when posting about what the ref's are doing when they deciding on a 30 pt penalty. I will give you your opinion about what you think they are thinking - I don't necessarily agree with your analysis, but you are allowed to form your opinion.
The ref's might simply be indicating that the team violated a rule in which 30 pts is the penalty.
I can't read their minds, and I wouldn't want to put words in their mouths.
Intent is a difficult thing to judge, that is why this rule is a tough one on everyone involved. Watching many many matches over the years, I have come to one conclusion - intent is determined by those that are doing, not those that are watching.

[opps12]

For all the people reading this post thread, if you did not attend the 2005 Midwest this year, it would helpful if you knew the context of this particular match. This was a semi final match #3, with the winner going to the finals. Second the teams playing are 71, 111, 537 vs 648, 79, 107. Third, the 10 point penalty for a G25 infraction was NEVER called throughout the entire competition, except for this instance. This call allowed teams 71, 111, 537 to advance to the finals by the score of 36 to 35 (teams 648, 79, 107 had a score of 45, but the 10 point penalty lowered their score to 35.)

In essence this call became a call which decides which alliance is going to finals, and since g25 is a judgment call, it is like the referees judging which team have the right to move on. There are arguments on both sides of the issue, and therein lies the problem. If a single call can change the course of a match so drastically, there should be no ambiguity as to whether the call should have been made or not. I liken this to a jury convicting a criminal despite the fact that there is doubt that the person did it or not.

In my opinion this is why there is so much discussion on this topic, the call was definitely questionable. I tried to present the case as unbiased as possible, and i hope this helps people decide what went on and what changes should be made for g25 rulings in Atlanta.

[AmyPrib]

First of all, did I miss the "breaking the plane" rule? I read the updates and rules again, and I haven't seen it. Or maybe it was just something implemented and announced at driver's meetings at events. Maybe I missed it.

From Chicago, here were few cases of inconsistencies I saw:

In one match I watched, a robot blatantly dangled a tetra high over the wall and did not get disabled, but later on, "pure breaking the plane" was a disablement. As Ricky stated, one match our entire alliance was disabled for this. I was about 15ft away from our robot doing it - I'm not even sure if the 1/2" of the endcap passed the thickness of the player station wall for that split second, but we were disabled. The tetra itself was 99% below the wall, as it was tilted downward in the field.. I thought this was a safety issue rule? I just don't agree with that case as being a safety issue. 269 was called for it in the corner area, where there is no wall, or people in the way. That's could be a pretty subjective call to tell if the tetra broke the plane. I feel like the "over the wall" should have been forseen with such a knowingly vertical game, and if it was considered, to create a rule against it at the beginning. But I guess, you just be careful near the wall and don't let anyone push you over the wall.

The aggressive play penalties seemed to get out of hand nearing the end. The calls on 79 have been discussed here, and I too couldn't figure out where the overly aggressive play was. Some were called for running into a robot from 2ft away or less - I hardly consider that ramming at high speed. I suppose if they did it for 2min non-stop, that could be considered overly aggressive, but not in this case. The only defense that appeared legal was pure blocking - forget about trying to bump a robot out of position.

There were some disables for accidental tipping, even though the rules clearly state that that could be part of normal game play. One robot had their arm extended, turned around to go to their auto loadzone, while another robot was sitting behind them and fell over when the other arm whacked into them. The first guy was disabled....
But yet others were tipped with clear intentional interaction, and nothing was called. (not saying the tipping was intentional, but the robot interaction was intentional).
The rules also state that it's legal to block or push on a tetra in possession of another robot.. Seems like there could be a lot of different interpretations of that one in combination of the intentional pushing high and tipping rule. It also says that attaching to a tetra and using it to tip over a robot is illegal. Seems like a robot could be pushing on a tetra, or preventing them from scoring with their arm legally, and get caught up in the tetra and accidentally tip the robot. Who knows how that would be called. One robot was pushed on high and fell over, but the initiator was not penalized because the partner of the tippee was in between. I don't recall that rule either. They were pushed on high, and tipped over. Period. The rules state that you can use and arm or gripper to prevent another from scoring. I'm legally allowed to push on a robot that has a tetra high in the air or to prevent them from scoring, but if it tips, am I penalized? Or is it only called if I push on the robot itself and it tips? I can totally understand why the refs would make inconsistent calls.

Yes, they are volunteers, they do their best, and we appreciate their efforts. But I agree with others that the inconsistency problem should be addressed in some manner, whether it's with the rule writing, ref training of some sort, or game design, or some other manner. I watched one robot get contacted in the HP load zone, and the ref was staring right at it - no penalty, but he also had a look of unsure-ness, as he kinda looked around to see if he was right or wrong. We were also disappointed in the re-play match where "a robot should have been disabled, but was not, therefore we're going to replay it". I guess I'm not sure how that happens.. if someone knew it, then why weren't they disabled at the time? When did they decide that someone should have been disabled, during or after the match? It just seemed that by now, inconsistencies should be minimal.

Overall Midwest was really exciting - right up there with Boilermaker competitiveness. I don't harbor any negative feelings regarding these issues, but it's tough for everyone involved to see these things happen and we'll all move on.

[Revolverx7]

Its not G25 itself I'm mad at, its the inconsistancy to witch it is called; to perplex the situation it is personaly frustrating that the refs called a drives meeting to go over what they would call as G25, and then called the exact opposite. Its these kind of discrepancies that dissapoint my competitive spirit. I can only hope for an elite group of consistant refs to be attending Atlanta this year.

[z3ro nightmare]

speaking as a student from team 79, of course we were dissapointed on the call, and wish there could be a more definite way to call these, but it comes down to a judgement call. i am extremely proud of the rest of our team and our alliance, and everyone at the competitions.

congrats to our alliance partners 107 on the sportmanship award. but our team is not going to let this bring us down, to us, we see it as we beat the two hghest teams (or almost did) and at nationals we will only do better. we have shown alot of people what krunch is capable of, and hopefully the calls in atl will lean more to a defensive stratagy. congrats to the winning alliance, they were all incredible robots.

see you at nationals

~jim
team 79 VP

[Guyute]

So far as I have read this thread when most people are talking about the G25 they inquire the tipping of a robot and intentional damage. During that match 71 was not tipped over nor was there any extensive damage(correct me on that if i'm wrong). I agree there was a lot pushing between the two teams but neither one actually fell over. I felt inconsistancy was a big problem. If 'Agressive Defense' was the case why wasn't it applied in the round before? On a smiliar subject I didn't exactly understand that after the second match during the finals why it was announced that 'A robot should have been disabled so we are going to replay the match.' There was no mention of which team commited the foul nor specifically what they did. I've seen at IRI Andy Baker, has gone over to the microphone when the crowd disagreed with the refs and explained himself .

[sw293]

Originally Posted by meaubry

sw293,
Please be careful when posting about what the ref's are doing when they deciding on a 30 pt penalty. I will give you your opinion about what you think they are thinking - I don't necessarily agree with your analysis, but you are allowed to form your opinion.
The ref's might simply be indicating that the team violated a rule in which 30 pts is the penalty.
I can't read their minds, and I wouldn't want to put words in their mouths.
Intent is a difficult thing to judge, that is why this rule is a tough one on everyone involved. Watching many many matches over the years, I have come to one conclusion - intent is determined by those that are doing, not those that are watching.

We are not talking about a thirty point penalty either. We are talking about disqualification.

The fact that intent is so difficult to judge is exactly why refs should apply this rule only in the most blatant and obvious situations. If there is a question as to what the team might have intended, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the team. The ref should always assume that both teams are observing gracious professionalism, and he should not deviate from that assumption unless he is given clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Otherwise gracious professionalism is just a cheap campaign slogan.

Twelve jurors must agree beyond a reasonable doubt for a court of law to determine affirmatively the intent of a criminal. In FIRST, one head ref can decide the intent of a team by using his own discretion. That is why he should be very cautious in making such calls.

[Jon K.]

I would just like to say, that I personally know some of the refs and Head refs at these events, and most of them have been with the FIRST program for a little bit of times, some this might be their first year with FIRST. Asking refs to make a call is a very difficult position for them to be in, especially when a call would have to be made either against or "for" an old team. I know many of the refs do read the manuals before hand and do have a great grasp on the rules. While I do not know what went on this past weekend, I do know what it is like to be on the receiving end of a penalty that cost a match, and on the receiving end of penalties that almost have cost a match in the finals. If your drive team feels that they have had a call unfairly made against their team, then it is their responsibility to go up to the head ref and ask for a clarification of the call. The Head refs are usually more then willing to explain the call to them if they ask about it. And this shouldn't be an adult going and accusing the refs of poor judgment. This should be a STUDENT MEMBER of your drive team, after calming down of course, simply going up to the Head ref and asking why they received a penalty, and why they feel they did not deserve it, if after receiving clarification they feel otherwise. I know at the Chesapeake regional, RAGE was on the receiving end of a call we were unsure of, and it was a 30 point penalty as well as a 10 pointer, I believe called with G25 as its base. We had won the match, but still had questions as to why the calls had been made, I was the coach for my team and the alliance captain, and I went up after cooling down, and simply went up to Aidan and asked for a clarification even though the outcome would not have been effected, and he was more then willing to give me an explanation, and the ruling was based on a call that neither myself nor the drivers could see. We had backed up into a team that was in the loading zone, and we didn't know they were there. It was a legitimate call and we accepted it. While the adult mentors may get upset at this, being a student and coach, I knew the rules, and I had no issue with the ruling as it was called, and as such I went to my team right after the match and explained the reasoning behind the call, and they then realized it and calmed down.

Basically what I am trying to say is, have a STUDENT go up to the Head ref and ask them about the call, and then have that same student explain the ruling to the team. It usually helps to calm mentors down a bit when they see a student calm about a call.

Also it isn't the responsibility of the Ref to explain their actions, they shouldn't have to. They should have the respect of every one in that venue, because they are the ones who are visibly working the hardest during those 2 days(I say visibly because I know there are people working just as hard all 3 days, but they are more behind the scenes, like the regional directors and all the other volunteer support staff at the events.), and they usually show up on Thursday whenever possible to get a feel for how the game will be played out.

I would just like to give my sincerest gratitude to the referees and thank them for all their hard work and effort that they put forth to make these event what they are.

[Scott team 48]

I have two things in my head after reading this thread:
First: As a participant in the Buckeye Regional I was pleased for the most part with the reffing that went on, the parts I wasn't pleased on I came to the conclusion that I won't always be pleased and I move on. However, I do feel that if something displeases everybody, or almost everybody, than something should be done. I feel that at the driver meeting, at the beginning of the competition, the ref's should define what they feel aggressive driving is, and they should all define it the same. Our ref's were fair and did give a lot of warnings, there was a team (not pointing out #'s) who the ref's felt was designed solely to tip other robots over, and they gave them a warning that if they tipped a robot over they would be DQ'ed. They told them before they did it, and that team had a chance to correct a potential problem. Good job Ref's.
Second: Anyone who says that Travis is a bad mentor obviously doesn't know Travis. Travis works his tail off for our team day in and day out and we would be lost without him. Saying that Travis is a bad mentor hurts me, and I'm sure it hurts Travis. How many people do you know that will help you debug the program while your in Cleveland and he is in China? Not many, but Travis did last year. Travis is just trying to bring a problem into the light that can be quickly and (hopefully) easily corrected before anyone gets hurt by inconsistent calls made on the field. He didn't start this thread to bash anybody, nor did he do it to criticize the ref's, he did it because he cares about everybody involved in FIRST and he would hate to see bad blood cause the loss of teams. I don't need to talk to Travis to know this because I know Travis, and he doesn't do things to intentionally upset people, he is only trying for the greater good.

If my post has offended anyone, I'm sorry but thats just how I feel.
Travis, I support you 110% and I'm sure that I'm not alone in this.

[Steve W]

Consistency is all that is being asked for. This must come from the top with clear defined rules. I have ranted on this many times already so I will not continue along that line any longer.

The refs are volunteers. They always try their best. They don't always get the same direction. They don't always come to events with a full understanding of the rules. They have probably the hardest job in FIRST. No ref is really appreciated by both alliances all the time. Every call has 3 sides, mine, yours and theirs. I do not believe that refs pick on any team. We NEED to give them the best support that we can. Now let's see if FIRST can give them the same or more support.

[Ricky Q.]

My earlier post in this thread was my rant. I deleted it because I do not think my ranting about something that I cannot fix will help anything.

Are there issues? Yes. Will there always be issues? Yes. Impulse responses are not the way to fix these issues.

Until I can think of a miracle way to fix everything, I will keep my ranting to myself.

[Amanda Morrison]

Originally Posted by robo hottie71

Were those the right calls? Maybe, maybe not. Are we lucky that no one got seriously hurt? Probably. Should FIRST have realized that much scoring would take place at the wall with robots that have the ability to extend well above the top of the wall? ABSOLUTELY. Whether we have been playing for 4 weeks or not shouldn't matter at all - there needs to be a remidy made for next week or surely the Championship with some sort of ceiling.

Stu is exactly right- there is no rule. I suppose you could call this a gray area, created by FIRST? Another G25-esque rule that is left in the hands of the referees to make a judgment call?

I find it particularly irritating that people are comparing regional to regional when there is obviously no consistency at the regionals. FIRST is not infallible. Nobody is. Why should we assume that they are? Mistakes are always made, no matter whom is making them, and this needs to be realized in every single thread being made about this subject.

Has there never been a gray area created by FIRST? Has a referee never had to make a judgment call on a rule that does not completely cover an incident that might happen? It happens every year. Many people seem to single out regionals for their inconsistency, but I fail to see why this has any relevance. The referee crews were not the same. People are not the same. Every call that a referee makes is a judgment call, on whether or not they think a violation has happened. It happens. Life goes on.

In my first year of FIRST, I didn't understand gracious professionalism. At the last event of that year, a call was made on my team that cost us the win. In a fit, I stormed out of the event and sat on the bus, refusing to recognize those who won. Someone said to me, "The only thing that is making us look like losers is your inappropriate behavior". I'd like to think that gave me a lot better perspective on FIRST.

If the CD community is looking for ways to spend their energy after regionals, thank you threads are a good way to start. Posting on CD, yelling at competitions, and publicly stating that you are unsatisfied with gameplay, referee calls, and events has very little purpose. There is no obligation from FIRST to read what is written on these forums and make a clarification.

For being inspired students and mentors, we sure don't act that way a lot of the time. We're fallible. We get passionate, we act out, we don't think. We run across the field screaming/cursing at the referees and we expect FIRST to have a plentiful supply the next year. Many of the people who are giving knee-jerk reactions here on CD need to have their reflexes checked.

I don't agree with things that happen at events, but I'm also not one to cuss referees, sit in the stands, or complain for too long. It happens. Another FIRST kickoff comes around, we are excited again, gray areas are created.

Life goes on. FIRST goes on. And regardless of the bad calls, unclarified rules, 'bad' kit parts, gray areas, aggressive play, inappropriate behavior, inconsistent referees, and medals-that-should-rightfully-go-to-another-team comments, I come back every year. I hope everyone else posting here does, too.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by Amanda Morrison

For being inspired students and mentors, we sure don't act that way a lot of the time. We're fallible. We get passionate, we act out, we don't think. We run across the field screaming/cursing at the referees and we expect FIRST to have a plentiful supply the next year. Many of the people who are giving knee-jerk reactions here on CD need to have their reflexes checked.

I'll agree, to a point. Humans, by nature, get emotional about things. Especially these 120-pound pieces of metal, plastic, and occasionally wood that we put together. So if something that someone feels shouldn't happen happens that involves the aforementioned 120-pound creation, I would be more surprised if they didn't react with some degree of negative feeling (inward or outward). Perhaps that's not how it should be in the world--but it's how it is in the world.

That being said, let's watch out for each other. If you sense someone's about to lose their cool with someone else, pull 'em aside and let them air it out between the two of you. Whether they're right and need to alert someone quickly or are wrong and just need a deep breath and a Mountain Dew, odds are that you'll be helping them cool off to the point that their beef (real or imagined) is at least processed enough to be edible.

I hope this post made sense--great posts are not meant to be made at two in the morning. But to put it simply, don't let your friends and teammates get too steamed about things in FIRST. It's supposed to be something we enjoy doing, remember?