Referee not knowing the rules

[Koko Ed]

The easiest thing to do in the world is to stand on the sidelines, point a finger and criticize.
If you really think the refs are so bad step up and show them how it's done.
Volunteers are in short supply and we always need more.

[rwkling1]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

The easiest thing to do in the world is to stand on the sidelines, point a finger and criticize.
If you really think the refs are so bad step up and show them how it's done.
Volunteers are in short supply and we always need more.

As my previous comment states, I said i respect that we have to deal with refs, it's okay, I wanted to get others opinions, and for that matter, possibly a video proving me wrong or right.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Koko Ed

The easiest thing to do in the world is to stand on the sidelines, point a finger and criticize.
If you really think the refs are so bad step up and show them how it's done.
Volunteers are in short supply and we always need more.

The perception of a problem is equally as damaging as an actual problem. Simply because one has never refereed does not mean they can't have a perception of a problem. I didn't see this thread as too much criticizing a person. I viewed it more as asking for clarification... it also led to Siri's question (below) which is a good thing.

(I will admit, the title comes across a little critical but my impression was that it was not intended in that manner)

Originally Posted by Siri

That's fair, do you have any suggestions for improvements? Based on this thread, the refs there were quite experienced (in fact having done more official events than the OP).

The primary problems I see (as one who has never been a ref but has a fair amount of experience with FIRST games)

• "Intent" rules - "consequential", "intentional", "make every effort" are all vague terms and leave refs open to perceptions of bias. Rules need to be black and white. if X then Y
• Blind Spots on Field - if the ref can't see the area of the field they are responsible for how can they ref it?
• Too many things to watch - Climbing this year? I'm SURE there were teams out there with invalid climbs. How many times did that penalty get called? Making people watch that much at once leads to calls getting missed. Leads to calls of bias and what not.
• 54" Cylinder rules - Seriously, does anyone even think these are enforced?
• Cycle Time - Refs need some time to deliberate. Especially in eliminations. Teams need time to ask questions. Field Supervisors need to recognize this. (I'm just gonna duck preemptively as I just suggested fewer matches)

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

[*]54" Cylinder rules - Seriously, does anyone even think these are enforced?

For the cylinder rule, I can tell you the refs do their very best. Through the three events I was LRI for (Lake Superior, North Star, and MSHSL tournament) the refs did ask me to go back and double check a few robots at each event to ensure they were compliant in a certain configuration. I also know that the refs were concerned about a couple of the robots at MSHSL last weekend when they climbed. We had two robots that basically hooked on and fell over horizontal - the refs borrowed my tape measure and sharpie (the LRI vest hold just about everything imaginable) and made marks on the auto line tape so they could tell where 54" from the pyramid was. I know this penalty got called at least once after that!

But, you do bring up a very good point. There are rules like the 54" diameter cylinder that fall into a sort of "gray area" between reffing it on the field and inspecting it in the pits. That said, they are usually created very intentionally. For example, without that rule in this game, it would be possible for a single robot to grab onto the pyramid and expand out to blockade one half of the field (both inside and outside the pyramid). Now, what happens if two robots on the same alliance do this during autonomous mode? Does it count as blockading the field (20-pt technical, but completely prevents the other alliance from scoring discs)? If one of the opposing robots hits them, it's interfering with their climb, giving them a technical plus 30 points. Without the 54" rule, this could be a viable (and boring) strategy for an alliance, depending on the third robot!

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

For the cylinder rule, I can tell you the refs do their very best.

I know they do. I was kinda wishlisting for rule types to be avoided in the future. I understand why the rules are there. I just hope refs are instructed not to call violations unless they are flagrant (which violates another of my wishlist items). 54.5" ? Who cares. 85"? Yeah, that's a violation.

[rwkling1]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

The perception of a problem is equally as damaging as an actual problem. Simply because one has never refereed does not mean they can't have a perception of a problem. I didn't see this thread as too much criticizing a person. I viewed it more as asking for clarification... it also led to Siri's question (below) which is a good thing.

(I will admit, the title comes across a little critical but my impression was that it was not intended in that manner)





The primary problems I see (as one who has never been a ref but has a fair amount of experience with FIRST games)

• "Intent" rules - "consequential", "intentional", "make every effort" are all vague terms and leave refs open to perceptions of bias. Rules need to be black and white. if X then Y
• Blind Spots on Field - if the ref can't see the area of the field they are responsible for how can they ref it?
• Too many things to watch - Climbing this year? I'm SURE there were teams out there with invalid climbs. How many times did that penalty get called? Making people watch that much at once leads to calls getting missed. Leads to calls of bias and what not.
• 54" Cylinder rules - Seriously, does anyone even think these are enforced?
• Cycle Time - Refs need some time to deliberate. Especially in eliminations. Teams need time to ask questions. Field Supervisors need to recognize this. (I'm just gonna duck preemptively as I just suggested fewer matches)

I had no intent in criticizing, just trying to get confirmation whether I was right or wrong. The title is a little harsh, but it's the first thing that came to my mind.

Also, if you skip to 18:40, you can see one team extending way above 60 inches, with no intent of blocking anyone, or being shoved out of their auto zone.

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by rwkling1

Also, if you skip to 18:40, you can see one team extending way above 60 inches, with no intent of blocking anyone, or being shoved out of their auto zone.

Given the camera angle, I don't think we can say what was happening to their left prior to them putting the blocker up. Regardless, that deserves a 3 point penalty, not a Technical - from what we can see on the video, they were moving towards their auto line. I don't think one brief instance of a couple of seconds constitutes "continuous or repeated violations" to qualify for a technical. Given the score results, it does look like the refs missed that single 3 point penalty (there's a lot going on the field, the nearby refs may have been focused on another area)...but as it was 70-87, 3 points wouldn't have made a difference.

[rwkling1]

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis

Given the camera angle, I don't think we can say what was happening to their left prior to them putting the blocker up. Regardless, that deserves a 3 point penalty, not a Technical - from what we can see on the video, they were moving towards their auto line. I don't think one brief instance of a couple of seconds constitutes "continuous or repeated violations" to qualify for a technical. Given the score results, it does look like the refs missed that single 3 point penalty (there's a lot going on the field, the nearby refs may have been focused on another area)...but as it was 70-87, 3 points wouldn't have made a difference.

The ironic part is, it did happen multiple times, at least 3 or 4 times, it's just that you can't see it. So in that case it would not have been a 3 point penalty, rather a 20, so yes, it does make a difference

[Jon Stratis]

Originally Posted by rwkling1

The ironic part is, it did happen multiple times, at least 3 or 4 times, it's just that you can't see it. So in that case it would not have been a 3 point penalty, rather a 20, so yes, it does make a difference

The key there being that we can't see it. The camera simply doesn't show the right part of the field the entire time for any of us to be sure there were more violations. I've seen situations before where one or two individuals had themselves convinced "A" happened, but when video became available it was actually "B". Short of memory ("eye witness reports" are the least trusted evidence by police... get 3 people to watch something and interview them afterwards, and you'll end up hearing 4 completely different stories of what happened), we simply can't see that anything other than a 3 point penalty was missed.