Call Inconsistencies Between Regionals

[seanwitte]

Why does the officiating have to be consistent between the regionals? As long as they're consistent with a venue, does it matter what happens at another event? The rules will never be so objective that they can be uniformly applied across so many different events. You have all day Thursday to understand the way the game will be called, which is not an unreasonable amount to time to make any necessary adjustments.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by seanwitte

Why does the officiating have to be consistent between the regionals? As long as they're consistent with a venue, does it matter what happens at another event? The rules will never be so objective that they can be uniformly applied across so many different events. You have all day Thursday to understand the way the game will be called, which is not an unreasonable amount to time to make any necessary adjustments.

This is not good thinking in my eyes.

At some point in time all these teams are coming together for this thing called the championship event. What would it be like if on curie they scored all the balls on the overpass as per <G14>, but on archimedes they scored them as per how the refs scored them for a good chunk of time at SVR ?

Well when you get to einstein and the refs are calling it as per <G14>, those archimedes teams are going to be playing a slightly different game.

It just doesn't make sense to have 41 different variations of the game being played in 41 different venues.

[Guy Davidson]

I agree with Brandon. It does not make any sense, in any way, for there to be different rules for different venues. There is one set of rules - that is the one written in the manual.

I think the adult volunteers need to be better trained about the meaning and the reason for the yellow challenge box. Luckily for us, in SVR, we were never kicked out out of the challenge box by any adult volunteer. If that happens, then perhaps this needs to be emphasized with the adult volunteers.

[waialua359]

Originally Posted by sumadin

I agree with Brandon. It does not make any sense, in any way, for there to be different rules for different venues. There is one set of rules - that is the one written in the manual.

I think the adult volunteers need to be better trained about the meaning and the reason for the yellow challenge box. Luckily for us, in SVR, we were never kicked out out of the challenge box by any adult volunteer. If that happens, then perhaps this needs to be emphasized with the adult volunteers.

I wont mention his name, but at Chesapeake, I got a "this isn't VCU remark" when I questioned an inconsistency during inspection and to the same person as he was a referee during matches for a penalty call.

[RoboMom]

Originally Posted by waialua359

I wont mention his name, but at Chesapeake, I got a "this isn't VCU remark" when I questioned an inconsistency during inspection and to the same person as he was a referee during matches for a penalty call.

The Chesapeake Regional Planning Committee, along with all the lead positions will be having a formal debriefing. I am happy to pass along your constructive criticism if you send them to me in a brief document. jbeatty@usfirst.org

There is always room for improvement.

My understanding was that questions about anything that happened on the field were to only be addressed by the head referee. If that process was not followed, please include that in your comments.

It was a pleasure and an honor having Team 359 at Chesapeake.

[Rick Thornbro]

Wow, I glad I'm not a ref this year.

I have ref in the past and know it takes a great deal of time away from my paying job and family to work at an event. I wasn't paid and did not expect to be.

We must remimber that for the most of the people working these events, are unpaid and do so to the best of their abitilty. This year, in order to increase the quality of the refs, FIRST has tried to balance training with the refs schedule. I believe that overall, the refs have improved over previous years. Are they perfect? No.

To increase the amount of time a ref must be trained for an event is a great idea however, can all the people take the time off work and away from family to do it? If not, do we not use that person? It's hard enough to get people to give up their time without the criticism (constructive and not).

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by Rick Thornbro

To increase the amount of time a ref must be trained for an event is a great idea however, can all the people take the time off work and away from family to do it? If not, do we not use that person? It's hard enough to get people to give up their time without the criticism (constructive and not).

I agree. I to have a paying job that i must leave to attend a competition, as do many other mentors and people who are NOT volunteering. The point is that if you volunteer to be a referee, expect criticism, plain and simple. I am more than willing to be a referee, but as expressed through this forum, it appears, on the east coast at least, that you need an in to become one.

I think everyone here understands that "they're just volunteers", but they hold a great deal of responsibility. The culmination of a lot of things runs directly through their hands, so shrugging it off as they're trying, lets leave it at that, is not going to get the job done here.

[Tom Bottiglieri]

I think college students are the best bets for referees. Most of team are able to to get to competitions on Thursday and Friday, have a passion for the game, rules, and fairness left over from high school, and have lots of potential to open up doors for the program if they come back over the years. (Thats right, the STUDENTS can open doors for the PROGRAM, not the other way around...)

Instead I've seen these students turned away as they are "unexperienced" or "not the right fit". To this I say: What gives? If college students were not allowed to ref because of these reasons and this thread didn't exist, I may not care so much. But, obviously people have been dissatisfied with the performance so far, so I would like to call this matter to attention.

[math4origami]

Originally Posted by RoboMom

The Chesapeake Regional Planning Committee, along with all the lead positions will be having a formal debriefing. I am happy to pass along your constructive criticism if you send them to me in a brief document. jbeatty@usfirst.org

There is always room for improvement.

My understanding was that questions about anything that happened on the field were to only be addressed by the head referee. If that process was not followed, please include that in your comments.

It was a pleasure and an honor having Team 359 at Chesapeake.

Is there a Silicon Valley Regional Planning Committee contact?

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by math4origami

Is there a Silicon Valley Regional Planning Committee contact?

http://www.firstsv.org/contact.php

[David Brinza]

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

This is not good thinking in my eyes.

At some point in time all these teams are coming together for this thing called the championship event. What would it be like if on curie they scored all the balls on the overpass as per <G14>, but on archimedes they scored them as per how the refs scored them for a good chunk of time at SVR ?

Well when you get to einstein and the refs are calling it as per <G14>, those archimedes teams are going to be playing a slightly different game.

It just doesn't make sense to have 41 different variations of the game being played in 41 different venues.

Last year, I watched the brutal elimination round matches on Curie. The ref's allowed some very aggressive play on that field. In the first semi-final match on Einstein, the Curie alliance received a DQ for tipping 71, when the robots involved were attempting to hang ringers on the same spider. My initial reaction was that the Einstein ref had a very different criteria for illegal robot-robot interaction than what was called on Curie. After viewing a video of the DQ, from a field-side spectator, I don't question the call by Aidan, but the same ruling probably wouldn't have been made on Curie.

A problem with aggressive play is it tends to intensify to the point where fouls must be called, but once refs start down the path of "let 'm play", it gets harder for them to draw the line.

[seanwitte]

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

It just doesn't make sense to have 41 different variations of the game being played in 41 different venues.

In your example, I would not expect Curie to vary from Einstein in any substantive way because the staff are working together all weekend at the same venue.

I'm assuming that there are some lessons learned being rolled up each week when a regional wraps up. By the time the championship event happens the majority of the issues should be worked out and the refs will have a full body of knowledge. BUT, if a first week regional is run slightly differently than the championship event, is that really a problem?

[Guy Davidson]

Originally Posted by seanwitte

In your example, I would not expect Curie to vary from Einstein in any substantive way because the staff are working together all weekend at the same venue.

I'm assuming that there are some lessons learned being rolled up each week when a regional wraps up. By the time the championship event happens the majority of the issues should be worked out and the refs will have a full body of knowledge. BUT, if a first week regional is run slightly differently than the championship event, is that really a problem?

You wouldn't expect it, and neither would I, but, at the end of the day, that's what happened.

If a week one regional is run slightly differently than the championship event, I think that's acceptable. However, we are in week three right now, and I don't think that anything here is very much slightly different - the referees made clear mistakes that are against the rules.

I think that any way you look at it, there is a problem with refereeing this year. I posted my suggestions earlier in this thread, and I agree with most of Paul Copioli's suggestions.