Refereeing

[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.