Call Inconsistencies Between Regionals

[Paul Copioli]

Lil Lavery wanted suggestions, so here are some I have already brought up to individuals within the reffing and GDC circles:

1. While the NASCAR theme is cool, forget about this "look at the robots right at zero nonsense." Just assess the points when everything comes to rest: robots and balls. Why? It makes it easier for the refs and the spectators.

2. Don't use referees for the scoring, use scorekeepers. Scorekeepers only need to know what counts and what doesn't with respect to balls and robots crossing. Use 4 scorekeepers per arena.

3. Along with number 2, use 6 referees per match plus the head referee. Each ref is assigned one robot the entire match. They asses every penalty associated with that robot as they are actually watching that robot. The zone reffing makes it almost impossible.

4. Use examples in the rule book. Let's take the multiple configurations rule as an example. A simple "if it looks like the two mechanisms could be used without each other on the field as a moveable robot, then they are not considered mechanisms; they are considered robots" would stop the majority of the debate (there will always be FIRSTers who try to wiggle through every word (aka lawyering) even though they will swear they are not lawyering).

5. Clearly state the reason for the yellow flag. Is it for dangerous play or not? I thought it was reserved for dangerous play. How does an offensive robot get a yellow card while it is being aggressively defended?

6. If there is a particular intent for a rule, state the intent in the rulebook.

The rest of the suggestions are for the FIRST community:

7. Don't blame the game of the refs for certain deficiencies in our skill. G22, for example, is a clear rule that is being called as per the rule. Hurdler interference is a penalty that has to be called. You are stopping a team from scoring 10 points, so the penalty is 10 points. It is the "pass interference" of Overdirve. We make every decision based on the rules. If there was a rule against guarding the trackball, they we wouldn't consider it a viable strategy. However, even though we know this is supposed to be an offensive game, we are using the fact that there is not a rule about guarding the trackball as a reason to guard the trackball. Because of us, the rulebook will keep getting bigger.

8. Those of you complaining about the quality of reffing, become a ref. I will do this next year as I have never reffed beofer and will now start. At Detroit, the reason the reffing is much better than other places I have witnessed is the refs are mostly involved with FIRST teams or are FIRST team alumni. We need to increase the talent level of the referees from within. We must become a part of the solution.

I sent more to the GDC, but it is not appropriate for this forum.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

... Those of you complaining about the quality of reffing, become a ref. I will do this next year as I have never reffed before and will now start. At Detroit, the reason the reffing is much better than other places I have witnessed is the refs are mostly involved with FIRST teams or are FIRST team alumni. We need to increase the talent level of the referees from within. We must become a part of the solution. ...

Thanks, Paul. This is, by far, the most constructive suggestion yet.

[meaubry]

Lil Lavery makes a good point and Paul's response supports what he suggested.

Paul provided a number of suggestions that could be considered to improve the situation.

David made one as well, by the way - years ago, adult mentors used to be able to discuss rule infractions with the ref's. It was said that the discussions often were a bit too heated for some folks comfort level. Only thing I could guess is that debating questionable and even sometimes bad calls, must not be considered gracious professionalism. I would even say that some high profile mentors might even intimidate some less confident head ref's. Oh well, it is what it is.

As to suggestions -
1) Start with a formal rule infraction appeal process that is initiated as early as seeding match 1. Make sure everyone understands how it works on practice Thursday. This rule infractions appeal process is for improving the refs performance, not changing the score or outcome of the match. As stated in the rules, ALL decisons are final. The earlier the process begins the more consistant the ref's and drivers should become.
2) Track all rule infractions, off field as well as on field - for on field rule infractions track which ref is calling it, and on which team, under what situation, and what rule, for example: Ref #2, team #47, while crossing mid field line, G22.
3) Rule infractions should be reviewed with the offending teams designated drive team member, after each match in order for that team to better understand what and when the infraction was that they are being penalized for. Don't leave it up to everyone guessing what and when the penality is for - and have the ref that called it explain.
4) Rule infractions must be reviewed by the entire team of refs whenever more than 2 rule infractions occurs per any ref, in order to validate the rule is being called properly and with appropriate understanding by ALL of the refs. After reviewing it, if 2 additional penalties are ruled on - have the game announcer and/or emcee remind the teams of the rule prior to the next few matches.

Clearly, this game may never be penalty free (even though I witnessed many penalty free elimination matches this past Saturday).

Difficulty by the drivers to see the entire field will lead to some "inadvertant" penalties.

Those penalties derived from aggressive game play and supported by the belief "there's no rule against it" are unfortunate for those applying that kind of thinking.

The idea of consistant application and understanding of the rules is doable, but it takes EVERYONE to move the bar up in the process.

Mike Aubry

[Derek Bessette]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

2. Don't use referees for the scoring, use scorekeepers. Scorekeepers only need to know what counts and what doesn't with respect to balls and robots crossing. Use 4 scorekeepers per arena.

I think this would be the single largest improvement we could make. The scorekeepers could be given the following assignments.

Scorer 1: Hybrid lines, Laps and Herds for red
Scorer 2: Hurdles, removals, and places for red
Scorer 3: Hybrid lines, Laps and Herds for Blue
Scorer 4: Hurdles, removals, and places for Blue

Learning all of the rules is difficult. By creating roles that are specialized, each volunteer has less to learn and can become more of an expert. The scorekeepers wouldn't need to learn all of the other rules and the referee's (excluding the head referee) would not need to know all of the details involved in the scoring.

The tests that each volunteer is given could also be specialized for each role, allowing for a more in depth examination of their knowledge.

I am also a big fan of examples. When I was a hockey referee we were given a rule book and a casebook. The casebook was filled with examples showing the interpretations of each rule.

[Andy Baker]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

8. Those of you complaining about the quality of reffing, become a ref. I will do this next year as I have never reffed beofer and will now start. At Detroit, the reason the reffing is much better than other places I have witnessed is the refs are mostly involved with FIRST teams or are FIRST team alumni. We need to increase the talent level of the referees from within. We must become a part of the solution.

I totally agree.

Refereeing is not easy, obviously. I've been reffing since 2000, but it has not been my focus during the FRC season. I have reffed off and on, and only consistently as the head ref at IRI. People give me fairly good feedback from my reffing at IRI. I have learned some lessons* over the years.

(IRI is easy to ref, in a way, since we learn from the recent FRC season)

Last year, I volunteered as a judge at a new regional. I thought this was a good thing to try out. During the finals, the referee made a bad call, and I realized that my place is not to be a judge, but to be a ref. I should not be sitting there, criticizing the head ref when I think I can do a better job.

So... I signed up to be a head ref this year. Pat Major and Gail Alpert asked me to be the head ref at the Michigan Rookie event 2 weeks ago (except for leaving the teams on the field for too long during a field failure, I think I did well) and I will be the head ref in Oklahoma. Depending on how I do, I might be a head ref in Atlanta. Head ref or not, I will ref in Atlanta. This will be tough, as I could also be supporting team 45 or manning the AndyMark booth at the supplier's showcase.

* yeah, this is coming from a guy who disabled the wrong team in one of the semi-finals at Portland in 2004 (we re-ran that match), and the same guy who DQ'ed 71, 111, and 93 for entanglement at IRI in 2002.

So, yes, I agree with Paul. I usually do.

Andy B.

[chaoticprout]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

* yeah, this is coming from a guy who disabled the wrong team in one of the semi-finals at Portland in 2004 (we re-ran that match), and the same guy who DQ'ed 71, 111, and 93 for entanglement at IRI in 2002.

Andy, just thought of something hilarious while reading an old thread:

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

2. Many suggestions were made at the time of the call to simply replay the match. I understand this mentality. However, FIRST has never re-ran a match in this sort of situation where people have disagreed with the referee's call. We made a decision and stuck with it.

[GaryVoshol]

Originally Posted by Andy Baker

So... I signed up to be a head ref this year. Pat Major and Gail Alpert asked me to be the head ref at the Michigan Rookie event 2 weeks ago (except for leaving the teams on the field for too long during a field failure, I think I did well) and I will be the head ref in Oklahoma. Depending on how I do, I might be a head ref in Atlanta. Head ref or not, I will ref in Atlanta.

And even the great Andy Baker can change his call when presented with the rule and he realizes that something was incorrectly interpreted.

By the way, Chrysler has just told me that I must take vacation during IRI. I'll have to check the home schedule, but it looks like I'll be available.

So, yes, I agree with Paul. I usually do.

So do I, except when he's arguing with the refs.

[Guy Davidson]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

8. Those of you complaining about the quality of reffing, become a ref. I will do this next year as I have never reffed beofer and will now start. At Detroit, the reason the reffing is much better than other places I have witnessed is the refs are mostly involved with FIRST teams or are FIRST team alumni. We need to increase the talent level of the referees from within. We must become a part of the solution.

If the mess at SVR has taught me one thing this year, is that I will apply to referee an event next year, regardless of where I am. I have seen the effects that a referee mistake can really do (and I don't think I've ever seen a more significant mistake than the one during the SVR finals), and I want to help change it. The first step, in my mind, is to referee during an event.

[Michael Corsetto]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Those of you complaining about the quality of reffing, become a ref. I will do this next year as I have never reffed beofer and will now start. At Detroit, the reason the reffing is much better than other places I have witnessed is the refs are mostly involved with FIRST teams or are FIRST team alumni. We need to increase the talent level of the referees from within. We must become a part of the solution.

I knew I wanted to be a referee after I graduated, but my freshman class schedule did not permit me to do so at my two local regionals, SVR and Davis. I enjoyed refereeing Cal Games 2007, and next year I plan to be a referee at both SVR and Davis, possibly at Championships too if I get the chance. I think coming into refereeing with same "read the rulebook front and back, twice" mentality that I (and many other FIRST alumni) had as a student will help me make more consistent calls. Hopefully

Mike C.

[EricH]

I don't ref FRC because I don't think I'm up to that level. I did, however, ref FLL and an FTC competition.

FLL is relatively easy. If the robot goes back to base by hand, grab the object that needs removing. At the end of the match, total up the score.

FTC is another level. 4 robots to watch simultaneously. I think I did OK, but am not sure. (I did know enough to refer ruling questions to the Head Ref.) I had only seen the rules that day because I was an emergency "He's here, the ref who should be here isn't. Have him read the rules; he'll ref."

I don't ref FRC. Sometimes I want to, but then I think about it. It's a little out of my league. At least that's what I think.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by EricH

I don't ref FRC. Sometimes I want to, but then I think about it. It's a little out of my league. At least that's what I think.

I can't speak for this year, but it's truly not that difficult most of the time.

I refereed in 05. I was a little apprehensive at first, but I was confident I knew the rules and how to call them.

90% of the time it was very clear to me what happened. The other 10% of the time was when you get into subjective areas where you have to try to determine intent, or piece together what happened, and what rules are applicable, and you know one team will be disappointed no matter what happens.

As long as a ref has a very strong grasp of the rulebook, and are attentive to the robots/areas they are responsible for watching, they should get it right almost all the time.

[Swan217]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

1. While the NASCAR theme is cool, forget about this "look at the robots right at zero nonsense." Just assess the points when everything comes to rest: robots and balls. Why? It makes it easier for the refs and the spectators.

As far as problems go, I see this as one of the least. On the contrary, I think it's much more exciting seeing if that robot can beat the buzzer to the finish line. (As a robot-scorer referee as well)

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

2. Don't use referees for the scoring, use scorekeepers. Scorekeepers only need to know what counts and what doesn't with respect to balls and robots crossing. Use 4 scorekeepers per arena.

We already do this. There are 4 referees dedicated to scoring. They do not call penalties or do anything else besides scoring. You may think of them as linesmen.

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

3. Along with number 2, use 6 referees per match plus the head referee. Each ref is assigned one robot the entire match. They asses every penalty associated with that robot as they are actually watching that robot. The zone reffing makes it almost impossible.

You may want to ask the Great Lakes/Detroit Head Referee about this. In previous years, he had a system where your idea would be the norm. Unfortunately, with all of the problems last year, orders from On High were to have no more than 8+1 referees on the field (including 4 linesmen & Head).

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

4. Use examples in the rule book. Let's take the multiple configurations rule as an example. A simple "if it looks like the two mechanisms could be used without each other on the field as a moveable robot, then they are not considered mechanisms; they are considered robots" would stop the majority of the debate (there will always be FIRSTers who try to wiggle through every word (aka lawyering) even though they will swear they are not lawyering).

Agreed - examples would make it easier for teams, and harder for lawyers on said teams.

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

5. Clearly state the reason for the yellow flag. Is it for dangerous play or not? I thought it was reserved for dangerous play. How does an offensive robot get a yellow card while it is being aggressively defended?

<T05> Adequately describes the purpose of yellow flags. The trouble arises when <G#> rules such as <G34> or <G40> blur those lines without any clear middle ground.

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

7. Don't blame the game of the refs for certain deficiencies in our skill. G22, for example, is a clear rule that is being called as per the rule. Hurdler interference is a penalty that has to be called. You are stopping a team from scoring 10 points, so the penalty is 10 points. It is the "pass interference" of Overdrive. We make every decision based on the rules. If there was a rule against guarding the trackball, they we wouldn't consider it a viable strategy. However, even though we know this is supposed to be an offensive game, we are using the fact that there is not a rule about guarding the trackball as a reason to guard the trackball. Because of us, the rulebook will keep getting bigger.

Agreed - Pass interference = good rule. Guarding trackball = good non-rule & great strategy

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

8. Those of you complaining about the quality of reffing, become a ref. I will do this next year as I have never reffed beofer and will now start. At Detroit, the reason the reffing is much better than other places I have witnessed is the refs are mostly involved with FIRST teams or are FIRST team alumni. We need to increase the talent level of the referees from within. We must become a part of the solution.

I relish the day when some uppity team coach comes up and yells at referee Paul Copioli for some bogus call he just made. But yes, as I mention in FIRSTruth, the great regionals are the ones where the referees are biased - towards fair play and the love of the game.

[Anne Shade]

There have been attempts to improve refereeing made this year. I agree that the online training and "certification" process was the start of a good idea. At the very least, it forces the referees to look at the rules before they show up to the competition. This should help the head referees come competition. BUt how does it help if the referees are allowed to retake the test 53 times before they pass? At one point, you'll end up guessing the right answers with still no understanding of the rules.

To continue the list of improvements to the refereeing:

1. Limit the number of times the referees are allowed to take the test before they fail (I think this may have already been done but want to make sure it's mentioned in case it has not).

2. Provide for a method of evaluating the referees, specifically the head referees. Training is only half of the equation. Training provides the knowledge but is it being applied correctly? Referees in all professional sports are evaluated by their organization after all games. If too many mistakes are made, they are re-trained or released. Where is the evaluation for FIRST referees? How do we know that the training received was effective if their is no evaluation of performance? Some people are just not cut out for the job but we have no way to determine that until something goes grossly wrong.

3. This has been said already but to reiterate, provide hands on, face-to-face training for all the head referees in FIRST. It should be no different than what FIRST does with FTAs...

4. Give Aidan some help during the game design process for development of the referee process and during the regionals to evaluate performance of the other head referees. Maybe the Championship head refs should be determined at the Championship the prior year so they can form a referee committee to help Aidan? It is way too big of a job for one person.

[Brandon Holley]

I agree with many of the posters in this thread who agree that "they are just volunteers" excuse is no longer valid.

Something MUST be done, because what would a major league sport be if the crowned champions were crowned (or not crowned) because of a poor referee decision?

Unfortunately, reffing a sport, or being an umpire or any of this, is not usually something that can be picked up over a online courses test. I was an umpire in little league baseball, which believe it or not can have its fair share of confrontation. There were umpires that simply could not cut it. They didn't have the eye, or the "nack" to do it. Even though they are volunteers, in a game as complicated as that, you may have to look at getting professional help. The head referee cannot look at the entire field at once...



My suggestions:
1. There absolutely must be a way to train these referees better than just a test. Corey balint had suggested a video of possible scenarios played out via animation or even people robots like done in the kickoff examples, and do this pre regional events.

2. Even if it means raising the regional fee a hundred dollars extra per team, it would be worth it to have all the referees in person, together, going over the rules and some of the scenarios that might occur. Teams pay so much money to go to an event, its simply unfair to not have consistent refereeing event to event. Even if this means paying for these referees to fly around the country to keep it consistent.

3. The last suggestion I have isn't really a suggestion, but more of an observation of things that I've seen at competitions that unease me. Specifically in the case of talking to referees in the "box", I have seen white shirted volunteers turn students away without giving them the chance to state their case. This is obviously unacceptable. The box is there for a reason, it is there so that a student can talk to a referee about what had just occurred in a match. There is no reason for a disconnect between the students and the referees. Regardless of whether its about the robots or not, its always about the students. If it means the schedule needs to wait for 45 seconds, then let the schedule wait. Everyone is supposed to be there for the kids, so lets actually let the kids talk. Going from FLL in '01 to FRC '02 to '05 to FRC college mentor I have definitely seen the disconnect between the students/teams and FIRST as a unit. It saddens me to see students turned away from expressing their opinion, this isn't what FIRST is about.

[Bob Steele]

In looking at all of this an idea occurred to me.

What about taking another page from the new rulebook of sports.

The challenge flag... Each team would be allowed one per event.
Throw it for little things.... waste it....
Save it for something really important.... perhaps a change that would make a difference in a match score and tip the scales...

Perhaps use it as a third tie breaker for qualifications...

Perhaps, Each alliance would have one (only one) of these for the elimination rounds.

Of course this would not be used this year.... just something to kick around for next year...

I applaud the referees for the work they have done this year....
This is an extremely difficult game to referee compared to many others we have played.

thanks
Have a great year!!!