Refereeing

[Danny Blau]

One major difference between soccer and FRC is the idea that all FRC matches should be officiated exactly the same way. In soccer everyone that plays, coaches, watches or officiates knows thats each referee is different and will call the game differently from the last official. The soccer rule book (FIFA Laws of the Game) is filled with statements like "in the opinion of the referee...", and these give the refs the ability to apply common sense to a situation and make an appropriate decision. There is very little that is black and white about officiating a soccer game; was that a push or not, was the player tripped or did they slip on the ball, did the ball hit the ball hit their hand or body? In my opinion the fact that each referee can call a game differently is one of the best aspects of soccer, it forces the players and coaches to adapt to the game, to change their play to best match the opponents and the ref. You could have one ref that's very strict and one that a lot looser, and both are correct.

Without question soccer has a manly European influence and the rules show this, however, FIRST seems to be following the path of the largely American sports like Football and Baseball where a new rule must be created for every nuance of the game. by comparison the youth football rule book is 7 to 8 times thicker than the Laws of the Game.

The sports model is nice but I say take a page from industries' rulebook. In industry there is no rule book because the rules are always changing, people and companies have to react to whats going on around them right now not what they want to be happening or was was going on last month or last week. Give the referee's the flexibility to call matches the way they see fit, there's no reason that a match played in one regional has to be officiated the same as a match in another regional.

Danny B

[EricH]

Originally Posted by DannyB1259

The sports model is nice but I say take a page from industries' rulebook. In industry there is no rule book because the rules are always changing, people and companies have to react to whats going on around them right now not what they want to be happening or was was going on last month or last week. Give the referee's the flexibility to call matches the way they see fit, there's no reason that a match played in one regional has to be officiated the same as a match in another regional.

Which leads to the one and only actual major refereeing blunder I know of. At one event (to remain nameless), the refs incorrectly scored a particular item. When this was brought to their attention, instead of correcting the score as the normal response is, they replayed the match. The "wrong" team won the event as a direct result of that replay. FIRST corrected by giving the finalists spots at the Championship.

That's why the refs have to call the game the same way every week, unless the rules change. If they aren't called the same regional to regional, week to week, field to field, who's to decide which rule call is correct?

Heck, we already have enough trouble with the following exchange that is heard on Thursdays after Week 1:
"I'm sorry guys, but I can't let you compete with that."
"But it passed at the Magnolia Regional!"
"They just missed it. Team X has a similar, but legal design--you may want to talk to them. But the rules are clear: As it is now, your robot will not pass inspection."
"But..."

I've had a robot that I failed that passed with that component at a preseason scrimmage. Now, preseason scrimmages may or may not have certified inspectors, but regionals do. After one or two of the above exchange with a mentor, I called for the lead inspector. The team had to rebuild that part correctly.

[XaulZan11]

I think you need as much consistency throughout events as possible. When each ref is given significant latitude to make calls, its just not fair, as Eric pointed out).

It is worse yet when freedom affects individual matches. A perfect example of this was at regional this year. There was one ref who was responsible for watching a quarter of the field on the blue alliance scoring zone. The ref called atleast one penatly each match. Since mostly blue alliance robots were in that zone (to score), the blue alliance almost always had more penalties than the red alliance. Plenty of matchs were decided by penalties. Myself and a couple of other scouts quickly noticed this ref constantly waive his flag and were going to tell our drivers to simply avoid the portion of the field that ref watched (it was worth taking the extra couple of seconds to go to the other goal than getting a penalty). Thankfully, someone noticed this ref call a disproportional amount of penalties and switched him to watching the driver station. I believe most his calls were correct, but the ref was calling every minor penalty while the other refs were giving teams the benefit of the doubt.

[Danny Blau]

But thats exactly what you do in sports, you play to the refs. If they are calling it tight you have to be extra careful, if they're looser then you have extra latitude. This all works on the idea that each ref is consistent it their own calls, if so then its fair to all the teams at that event and those are the only teams your competing against.

If the refs are different in the next regional then you have to change your play, simple as that.

Danny

[EricH]

That is something that you can account for. Refs are trained so that they are consistent from game to game, and so that they are consistent within reason between ref crews. It's impossible to make every call exactly the same, but if one ref calls a second defending robot offsides if it's on top of the bump and another calls it when it hits the ground on the offense side, you do have a problem.

I've been known to tell a soccer opponent after a game that they'd need to tone down rough play their next game--the ref crew was loose. The crew for their next game--against us at our home field--and the refs that did our home games as a general rule did not like rough play. A week later, they picked up a few yellow cards.

What you were originally saying was apparently, let's let the call I've already mentioned actually happen between different events. That's not the way the rules are written, and not the way they need to be called.

There's a spotlight that says something like "The problem was too many penalties with too much room for judgment." I don't remember which year that was after, but I can think of two years where that applies: 2005 (loading zone) and 2008 (line crossing). The more room for judgment calls, the less the game is liked, primarily because of the penalties.

[Brandon Holley]

Originally Posted by DannyB1259

But thats exactly what you do in sports, you play to the refs. If they are calling it tight you have to be extra careful, if they're looser then you have extra latitude. This all works on the idea that each ref is consistent it their own calls, if so then its fair to all the teams at that event and those are the only teams your competing against.

If the refs are different in the next regional then you have to change your play, simple as that.

The only time I've really seen incidents at competitions be it offseason or official, was when a referee was making calls that simply were not correct based on the rule book. I will admit I don't watch a tremendous amount of soccer, but I've certainly watched my fair share and there are problems with that game as well. Offsides for example is tough to call and at times a huge swing in a game if its descoring what was a legitimate goal.

The point is, no system is perfect, so FIRST shouldn't try to duplicate a pro sports model. We can adopt many of the same techniques, but we should also try to correct the inefficiencies with pro sports as well.

All that being said, the refs do a great job right now, and anything we get on top of what they do already is gravy in my opinion.

-Brando

[Taylor]

FIRST Competition champions should be determined by the robots and the teams that drive and build them. They should not be determined by the officials.
The best way to achieve this is to have a comprehensive and complete set of rules that can be followed to the letter by referees and participants alike.

[Danny Blau]

So if I'm understanding you all correctly your saying that you want an all encompassing rule book with no ambiguity, right?

Just for grins lets do some math:
last year there were just sort of 1100 matches in week 1
with 5 weeks of regionals thats 5500 matches total, add in the Championship and the total is 6651.

Say for discussion that the refs had to make 10 decisions on a given robot in a given match, or 60 total per match
60*6151=369060

I for one don't want a rule book that covers 370,000 situations and what the appropriated ruling is, do you?

I feel that the referee crew does a great job, my point is that a rule book that covers all situations can not exist, and that more rules and regulations are not the answer.

[EricH]

We recognize that the rule book cannot cover every single situation. That is NOT what comprehensive and complete means!

However, as bitter experience has taught a lot of long-time forum members, having a loose rulebook may not always be an advantage. Just the other day, I ran across the following thread on a rule that was very open to interpretation, which is what you seem to be advocating: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3661

For the record, there are about 3 other threads on that topic. Two of the 4 are moderated, either due to extreme emotion either way or desire to preventing said emotion from degenerating.

A comprehensive and complete rulebook does not cover every situation, as not every situation is foreseeable. A comprehensive and complete rulebook lays down the rules as they are to be called, and some guidelines on what would likely be called in a hypothetical situation (say, high contact between robots). It is loose enough that the referees can give grace in situations they are not sure about (ball under robot, after Week 1), but tight enough that if a robot breaks a rule, it gets called (contact with a robot contacting its own tower). The advantage of the FRC rulebook is that it is flexible, allowing for game-affecting unforeseen situations to be dealt with quickly (reference the ball-under-robot rule and the seeding bonus).

You don't have to cover every situation, but you do have to give the referees enough guidance to make the right call at the right time, keep the calls consistent throughout an event, and call the game the same between events within a certain margin. Calling a solidly built arm breaking off due to very agressive defense not a penalty at all (not to mention a 10-point and robot modification almost intentional tip when there isn't a 10-pointer in the rulebook for that), and then calling accidental high hit/tip a disable/DQ, at two different events, is not cool. (After this happened, the head refs had to get training before being allowed to head ref. I'm pretty certain that both head refs involved are still reffing/head reffing.) But calling a pin over when the pinned robot moves off what it's being pinned off of versus calling it over when the pinning robot finishes backing up the requisite distance from the spot of the original pin is within tolerance, at least for me.

[Vikesrock]

Originally Posted by EricH

However, as bitter experience has taught a lot of long-time forum members, having a loose rulebook may not always be an advantage. Just the other day, I ran across the following thread on a rule that was very open to interpretation, which is what you seem to be advocating: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3661

For the record, there are about 3 other threads on that topic. Two of the 4 are moderated, either due to extreme emotion either way or desire to preventing said emotion from degenerating.

Link should be http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=36614

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Guys,
Referee training and actions have changed quite a bit since 2005 as have inspections. We should not reference these old threads when discussing issues under the new rules and methods.

[EricH]

Al, this is understood. The reason that that thread was brought up was as a reason that the refereeing methods have changed, and as an example of the disadvantages that a "loose" rulebook that is very open to interpretation can have. There is a poster that seems to be advocating that sort of rulebook; knowing what has happened when that sort of rulebook is used can be very helpful.

[plnyyanks]

Originally Posted by EricH

A comprehensive and complete rulebook does not cover every situation, as not every situation is foreseeable. A comprehensive and complete rulebook lays down the rules as they are to be called, and some guidelines on what would likely be called in a hypothetical situation (say, high contact between robots). It is loose enough that the referees can give grace in situations they are not sure about (ball under robot, after Week 1), but tight enough that if a robot breaks a rule, it gets called (contact with a robot contacting its own tower)..

exactly. being a soccer referee, a lot of responsibility is put in your hands and there's a lot of interpretation to go along with it. Still, as a referee, I think it's better to have a loose, but flexible rulebook, rather than a strict and rigid one. The rulebook can't account for every situation, and it shouldn't have to.

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by DannyB1259

Give the referee's the flexibility to call matches the way they see fit, there's no reason that a match played in one regional has to be officiated the same as a match in another regional.
Danny B

Danny,
We can't allow refs flexibility nor can we allow inspectors flexibility. The people involved have a lot invested in this competition. The sponsors are not likely to shell out as much and have their name on a robot that can lose at the whim of an official. Mentors are less likely to spend all the hours they currently work on the robot if they know there are unknown variables in the refs and inspections. Students are less likely to take ownership of a robot if they know their hard work can be circumvented by an official. I know many refs and know they work very hard because they have to make hard decisions. I know most inspectors and I can guarantee you that we train to make inspections as consistent across the country as possible. I don't want a team to end up at Championships with a faulty robot and have to tell them that the previous inspectors missed something huge. And yes, every year I get the same rant from teams who passed at previous events. Inspectors have to defend the rules as they were last edited. Many teams stop looking at the rules after week one or two and never look at the Team Updates. Those teams will be surprised when a specific item has been ruled illegal or when a game strategy has been ruled as legal in the last update. There were 20 Team Updates last year.

Imagine if you will a 2009 game where inspectors didn't inspect the trailer hitch, or a game like 2010 where refs didn't watch how many robots were in an end zone.