|
|
|
![]() |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
|
Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
Every year, with every game, it seems that the referees implement a "zone" refereeing style. That is, referees are assigned specific sections of the field and watch for penalties and/or points scored in this section of the field. Is this style the best use of referees? Or can we do better.
What if each referee, instead of being assigned portions of the field, were instead assigned to a particular robot. That referee would then be responsible for calling fouls on that particular robot, and granting points for things like crossings. Man-to-robot refereeing instead of zone refereeing. Benefits include:
I'm interested in thoughts on this system, particularly those of current or former referees. |
|
#2
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
Quote:
|
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
From what I've seen, especially this season, the refs spend almost as much time looking at those panels as they do watching the match. With a game this complicated, I'm sure those tablets aren't the most user-friendly thing around, and based on the FMS issues I've seen, I'd assume they're very, very laggy. Maybe some improvements to the FMS is really all that's needed. With the amount of training FRC refs get, the refs themselves can't be the only issue.
Last edited by evanperryg : 14-03-2016 at 00:36. |
|
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
Quote:
Trust me, the lag was 10x worse in 2014. Lag this year is maybe 1 second for a defense crossing, less for most other things. Probably the vast majority of problems are when something happens and one or more tablets drop out. (3 field faults I've seen first-hand--of 4--were one or more tablets throwing a hissy fit.) Again, this is something that if you don't have experience, you're better off saying that you don't, because then folks know just how much salt is needed. For most refs, it's a quick look to make sure they hit the right button, then hit the right button and be looking at the field. However, you're right about the refs not being the only issue. There's some defenses that are just there to be hard to see past... Also, Caleb, this is something that would take some time to go into, and I'm not entirely sure I'm supposed to do that at this point in time. Suffice it to say that the refs operate two to a zone, but it's a floating zone based on what's going on for at least a couple of refs (as in, refs can flex). Focus: POINTS. Not fouls, POINTS. You want us to focus on fouls, beg the GDC to go back to games using end-of-match status as the score and bring back scorekeepers. The fact that you're trying to change a system that you admit to knowing very little about means that people who DO know the system--and know it well--will be all over you about how you don't know the system. Note that I'm trying to help you understand the system a little bit. But I do think that you should look at the system first. Ask your local offseason--they're more lenient on who can ref than the regionals are, at least sometimes. Maybe ask the head ref at your next event if you can shadow one ref or another for a couple of matches--not sure if they'd allow that, but it might be worth a shot. And, like Donut, I've been pulled in late at events. For one, I was the #7 ref filling in for someone who was in the ER (and got called in at literally the last possible minute). For another, I was #6--we needed 7, and couldn't find anybody. (7 is for a fresh ref every few matches so refs can take a break.) BTW, one of those refs is the head ref, who has to keep an eye on the whole field as best he can, and doesn't get much of a break. Sure wish we had an extensive ref network out here... |
|
#5
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
Yes, I've had the "assume" thing banged into my head for years
it's good to hear this kind of thing from an actual ref, gives us a much better perspective on what problems there actually are with the current referee setup. Sounds like the logistics of refereeing can get out of hand very easily. |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
Seems like an interesting thought. What if the refs just did all their scoring on tablets that they hold all match? That way, their panel will always be in front of them no matter they move, if they're assigned to a particular robot. Doesn't FRC always use tablets for field diagnostics anyway? Sounds like a cool discussion to have
![]() |
|
#7
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
Read what EricH wrote, and do that. It's clear you've never volunteered as a referee.
Try being one and then you could have the credibility to comment. |
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
This doesnt mean he should not be able express his thoughts.
|
|
#9
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
When it comes to technical discussion of the act of refereeing, it means his comments should be taken with a gigantic grain of salt.
|
|
#10
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
The entire original post seems to be talking about the system the referees operate under, how to improve it, and how to potentially help and make the referees' lives easier. If we want to prevent future issues from happening, and YES issues are happening this year, we have to be much more open to ideas from everyone.
Why do the referees have to be the only ones who can suggest ways to referee? In regards to the suggested Ref to Robot style refereeing, the only issue I have with it upon first glance is vision. If the drive teams this year are throwing up 30' poles to watch their robots, the referees are going to have very broken vision as well. Last edited by bkahl : 13-03-2016 at 22:25. |
|
#11
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
I'm a little worried commenting on this thread since I've never been a ref before, but I think there is a reason nearly all FRC teams do a 'man to man' scouting approach other than a 'zone' like the refs do. I know they aren't the same thing, but I do think there is some validity to the idea.
I think it is great that some are taking time to think and carefully lay out a potential improvement other than just making another the same lazy post about how instant replay will fix everything. |
|
#12
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
Quote:
I can tell you the Match Observer judges typically[1] take a zone approach but unlike refs they can fairly quickly focus down on teams given feedback from other judges as well as their own intuition. -S [1] MO's tend to be given a lot of latitude on how to do their job. |
|
#14
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
Quote:
Judges are important, but I don't really think you can equate judging with reffing in this case. Also, judges don't have to talk to students about why they did or didn't get an award, so there's a lot less fallout from calling something incorrectly, or being mistaken. In response to other people - I disagree that people who haven't been a ref can't voice an opinion or solution, but I do think that those people should ask more questions first and be aware that the grass is always greener until you're standing on it. |
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles
Quote:
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|