Zone versus man-to-robot refereeing styles

[Caleb Sykes]

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:

• Referees' time is used more efficiently. I have seen matches where two or more referees are idle for long periods of time while robots are in other zones. With this method, all referees would be contributing to the refereeing effort for the entire match.
  
• Along with the above, referees will probably be less likely to miss calls or crossings because there are an overwhelming number of robots in their zone.
  
• Teams could know which referee is "theirs" for the match, and will more easily recognize when their team is the one being penalized.

Drawbacks include:

• May require more referees. Most events presently have 5 or 6 referees, while this arrangement would require 6 or 7 referees.
  
• Referees would need to move around more, which is often difficult because the area near the field is quite cramped at some venues.
  
• Viewing angles may be sub-optimal. With one ref on each side of each zone, at least one ref will always have a good viewing perspective on anything that happens.
  
• Inputting fouls and crossings could potentially be difficult if 2+ referees need access to the same input panel. However, 2 referees watching 2 robots and inputting into 1 panel could still be superior to the current system, where 1 referee watches 2 robots and inputs into 1 panel.

I'm interested in thoughts on this system, particularly those of current or former referees.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Caleb Sykes

• Inputting fouls and crossings could potentially be difficult if 2+ referees need access to the same input panel. However, 2 referees watching 2 robots and inputting into 1 panel could still be superior to the current system, where 1 referee watches 2 robots and inputs into 1 panel.

I'm interested in thoughts on this system, particularly those of current or former referees.

Thought: I'm not sure you understand the current system correctly. Watch the referees at your next event and see what they're looking at. It will help you immensely.

[evanperryg]

Originally Posted by EricH

Thought: I'm not sure you understand the current system correctly. Watch the referees at your next event and see what they're looking at. It will help you immensely.

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.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by evanperryg

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.

I do greatly hope that you know what happens when you assume. (Note that I don't assume that you know...)

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...

[evanperryg]

Originally Posted by EricH

*snip*

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.

[wjd13]

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

[DonRotolo]

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.

[MikLast]

Originally Posted by DonRotolo

Try being one and then you could have the credibility to comment.

This doesnt mean he should not be able express his thoughts.

[Lil' Lavery]

Originally Posted by MikLast

This doesnt mean he should not be able express his thoughts.

When it comes to technical discussion of the act of refereeing, it means his comments should be taken with a gigantic grain of salt.

[bkahl]

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.

[XaulZan11]

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.

[Caleb Sykes]

Originally Posted by XaulZan11

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.

Thank you, that is exactly what I was going for.

Originally Posted by EricH

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.

I agree that this is something that would (and should) take some time to transition into if we wanted to use this system. I'm not even convinced that this system is superior, I'm just trying to float ideas out in the hopes that the system can generally be improved.

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.

Thank you for this clarification. This is roughly how I have always observed the referees to operate. The focus should be on points, not fouls. I have not said anything to the contrary.

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.

I respect that others know more about the current arrangement than I do, I'm not trying to imply that I know their jobs better than them. I aired this suggestion so that we could start a conversation on potential ways to, among other things, make life easier on the referees. I directly asked for input from current/former referees to help the discussion along, I thought that was a clear enough deference to people with experience, but I guess I'll have to be more clear next time.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by DonRotolo

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.

Ok Don, I'm gonna ask for an explanation. My role typically has me doing other things during matches and I don't have time to play a game of "watch the refs" so I'd appreciate if you'd humor me.

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.

[alicen]

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber

Ok Don, I'm gonna ask for an explanation. My role typically has me doing other things during matches and I don't have time to play a game of "watch the refs" so I'd appreciate if you'd humor me.

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.

Uhh, is this because the Judges don't really need to know all the minute details of the rules and be able to asses and apply them at a moment's notice?

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.

[Andrew Schreiber]

Originally Posted by alicen

Uhh, is this because the Judges don't really need to know all the minute details of the rules and be able to asses and apply them at a moment's notice?

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.

Im very aware of this. Hence why I said "UNLIKE Refs". I was merely providing a point of reference to other folks for groups that do use zone scouting and why it was effective for that group. I don't propose refs do this in any way shape or form. Frankly judges miss a ton of stuff but because they are only watching to validate claims made by teams they can afford to without it impacting their job.