Call Inconsistencies Between Regionals

[thefro526]

I think a large portion of the issue this year is the complexity of the rules. At kickoff a student on my team said to me, "Dude how hard can this be? All we have to do is go straight and turn left." My first impression was the game will never play out this simply but, at least the rules should be straight forward.

I've studied the rule books for the last three years and I've never seen rules as complicated as this year. It seems as if the rules were not as concrete as previous years. In 06 and 07 I can remember the rules being so straight forward that just about anyone could ref the matches. The only clear inconsistency I could ever remember was how certain refs would call defense; I know personally in one match I drove last year I should have gotten a penalty or two but they were never called.

This year's rules are far to complicated. When it comes down to matches where people are debating whether or not their robot has crossed the plane when the smallest portion of their 'bot moved onto the line; it's time for a new rule. I think that I am most furious about the now infamous SVR Final Match three. The call was so wrong that anyone who was watching the web casts or saw a picture could tell it was wrong, yet refs who are feet away from the field and who can inspect the field after the match can't make the right call. I think there needs to be a massive rules clarification before week 5 (may be to late to do for week 4) and if not week 5 the championship.

[David Brinza]

Originally Posted by Lil' Lavery

Does anyone else have any suggestions, or are we going to go back to flaming the refs?

You're right - flaming on the refs is pointless and unfair.

My suggestion of allowing coaches to participate in rules discussion isn't intended to allow teams to beat up a referee. I think that even the most articulate student driver or team captain cannot be expected to get an adult referee to admit that a rule is being applied incorrectly. As part of GP, we expect our students to respect authority and somehow a student arguing with an adult appears disrespectful. Ultimately, the students will back down, no matter how right they are.

The issue at the SVR arises from a clear deviation from rule <G14> as written. This error was made multiple times, but no appeal was successful. It wasn't until the outcome of the finals hung in the balance that something was done to try to correct it. This is a very different situation than a judgment call (i.e. did my robot REALLY contact the other robot while hurdling).

When the rules are effectively being changed by referees (something that FIRST has already said is not appropriate), the process for appeal must be open and allow the teams (including coaches) to resolve before it gets out of hand.

[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.

[rcflyer620]

Just got back from Chessie and while the referees weren't perfect it was called pretty consistently.
Here is something that happened that may be an idea going forward.
On Thursday the refs were actually working with the teams to identify some sticky (subjective) rules and how they would be applied. As an example we are a herder/lap bot. We wanted to get the extra 2 points for the ball crossing the line as often as possible. This brings up the question of whether we were in contact with the ball even if it was rolling on the ground. The refs made it clear they wanted us completely seperated from the ball and even helped by signalling during Thursdays matches whether or not they would call it good. This was extremely helpful. If more of this behavior were exhibited I'm sure there would be less controversy in the later matches because there would be a better understanding of what to expect.

JM2C...

Mr. E.

[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.

[eugenebrooks]

I don't see any value in having an adult handle challenges to
referee decisions because they are less likely to back down than
a student is. To think of this in terms of likelyhood of backing
down, or not, is an example of wrong thinking for our envionment.
This is not a basketball game with the teams coach hollering
at the referees. Backing down, or not, is not what this process is
about. The more appropriate context is that of a lawyer making
a learned argument before a judge, with the judge's decision being
final. This is a learning opportunity for a student, not a an opportunity
for an adult mentor to bring home the bacon for the team. The
students who presented their case before the referees at SVR
did a great job.

Originally Posted by David Brinza

My suggestion of allowing coaches to participate in rules discussion isn't intended to allow teams to beat up a referee. I think that even the most articulate student driver or team captain cannot be expected to get an adult referee to admit that a rule is being applied incorrectly. As part of GP, we expect our students to respect authority and somehow a student arguing with an adult appears disrespectful. Ultimately, the students will back down, no matter how right they are.

[Guy Davidson]

To add to Paul's excellent suggestions:

1. Have some policy in the event of a blown call. What do you do if a penalty was tallied wrong? An object was scored incorrectly, based on an incorrect interpretation of the rules? Does this policy change if the correction is after the first match of qualifications, part way through qualifications, during eliminations, or affecting the third match of the finals?

2. Make the policy from item number 1 available for the teams to read. The teams would very much appreciate knowing what would happen in the event of a referee mistake.

3. Simplify the rules? I really don't know about this one, but it seems that the rules this year are either too complicated, or that the referee training course needs to be more thourough. We went to speak to the referees about rules and scoring inconsistencies with the manual twice in SVR before the pivotal finals match 3, and in each time, the referees changed something they were doing. I have seem most of those referees before; I do not think there were many rookies. However, something is not right when you can reach the last match of the competition before catching a blatant ruling mistake.

I just hope that what happened during the finals at SVR never happens again.

-Guy Davidson

[TKM.368]

Is it not possible to consult with a captain from each team on what score is going to be posted before actually posting the score? Then they can make their arguments there, correct the score, then post it. I assume this might slow things down in the beginning matches, but sooner or later I would think the matches would run smoother because the students will have (unfortunately) taught the refs what they are supposed to be looking out for.

[GaryVoshol]

Huh? "No, we scored 4 hurdles, not 3!" How long do you think those arguments will be?

[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

[Guy Davidson]

Originally Posted by TKM.368

Is it not possible to consult with a captain from each team on what score is going to be posted before actually posting the score? Then they can make their arguments there, correct the score, then post it. I assume this might slow things down in the beginning matches, but sooner or later I would think the matches would run smoother because the students will have (unfortunately) taught the refs what they are supposed to be looking out for.

It shouldn't be the driver's or robocoach's job to try and count the score. Neither should it be the coach's job. Each of those people have a very, very important job to do, and it has nothing to do with counting the score. The drivrs have to be focusing on their robot. The robocoach, hybrid mode, and other times in which his functionality might be used. And the coach, helping the drivers make their decisions.

As Paul Copioli suggested, dedicated scorekeepers would be a step in the right direction. While he suggested four, I think that even moving to two would be a huge improvement. One on each side of the field, counting each lap, herd, and hurdle, as well as hybrid points. It cannot be too complicated, and will allow referees to focus on impeding counts and calling penalties.

[math4origami]

Originally Posted by David Brinza

There's an adage I often hear in my business: "silence is concurrence".

If I am sitting in the stands, and my team is NOT in the game currently playing, and I see a blatant incorrect rule call, can I go up to the referee box and complain?

If I can, then consider all the other 42 teams in the crowd. Let's let them all go up and stand in the box then, too.

The issue is that it HAS been complained about, and that the ref's just brushed off all the previous allegations.

It's not OUR fault if other matches conducted previously that we did NOT participate in were called incorrectly.

If it was, then I will gladly go stand in the box to complain about every rule that I think is scored incorrectly from now on.

I am sure that FIRST does not promote that kind of anarchy, letting every team complain about every rule.

[Kevin Sevcik]

Originally Posted by TKM.368

Is it not possible to consult with a captain from each team on what score is going to be posted before actually posting the score? Then they can make their arguments there, correct the score, then post it. I assume this might slow things down in the beginning matches, but sooner or later I would think the matches would run smoother because the students will have (unfortunately) taught the refs what they are supposed to be looking out for.

Unless I'm completely insane, Lone Star has had teams sign off on match scores for a couple of years now. We've also yet to have a regional run significantly behind or have any serious scoring controversies. Possibly a benefit of running a later regional, possibly a benefit of having a staff that is incredibly, ridiculously serious about running a high quality event. Either way, I think it might say something about the current state of affairs.

[waialua359]

having a dedicated scorekeeper per robot would not work 100% in this year's game.
Example I gave earlier: A team unsuccessfully hurdles a ball and it gets stuck on the overpass. Another teammate comes around and knocks it off.
Its a hurdle that may be missed by a scorekeeper who only keeps track of what his/her respective robot is doing.
This happened as our team was waiting in the que area before our match.

If we can take one positive out of what happened at SVR, everyone who was frustrated with these issues at their respective regional(s), has really come to light as a result of the SVR situation.
This will definitely help FIRST and the GDC to address with greater emphasis on referee game knowledge, rules and the design of future games.

[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.