Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking

[Mr. Van]

A few thoughts:

If you have real issues with how events are refereed, the most direct solution is to volunteer as a referee. Be the new standard that all other refs will look to.

Just about all of us have been on the bad end of bad calls by referees in FIRST. It is also very likely that we have been on the "good" end of bad calls by referees (a glancing blow to a pyramid that wasn't noticed, etc.). Sometimes it seems things don't go your way so much that you develop a reputation. Believe me, I know what it is like to have "that talk" with a team all too well...
It is difficult, but it is what really makes a difference - a real difference.

As for the ranking system, the problem isn't so much that really good teams don't rank high (this is really rare), but the the alliance picking system places many, many teams in a "too good for a third pick" category. In many (most?) regionals now, the battle for the championship is between a handful of elite powerhouse teams who pair up and then look for a solid third pick. With all respect to those third picks, they are (because of the system) not generally among the top robots at the event. This places the robots in the 7th through 20th or so seedings (generally speaking) in a place where they almost never have a chance to form an alliance with a really competitive dominant team. There is a much better chance that a team in the lower ranks will be selected to round out those dominant alliances.

With the chance to participate in the Championship on the line, sometimes I ask "is this fair?" The clear answer is no. But then I realize that I've been drawn into the trap of thinking that this is about robots and scores and winning.

Reboot. Remember why we do what we do.

- Mr. Van
Coach, Robodox