[moderated]: A call for an end to inconsistency (sticking up for G25)

[Jon K.]

I would just like to say, that I personally know some of the refs and Head refs at these events, and most of them have been with the FIRST program for a little bit of times, some this might be their first year with FIRST. Asking refs to make a call is a very difficult position for them to be in, especially when a call would have to be made either against or "for" an old team. I know many of the refs do read the manuals before hand and do have a great grasp on the rules. While I do not know what went on this past weekend, I do know what it is like to be on the receiving end of a penalty that cost a match, and on the receiving end of penalties that almost have cost a match in the finals. If your drive team feels that they have had a call unfairly made against their team, then it is their responsibility to go up to the head ref and ask for a clarification of the call. The Head refs are usually more then willing to explain the call to them if they ask about it. And this shouldn't be an adult going and accusing the refs of poor judgment. This should be a STUDENT MEMBER of your drive team, after calming down of course, simply going up to the Head ref and asking why they received a penalty, and why they feel they did not deserve it, if after receiving clarification they feel otherwise. I know at the Chesapeake regional, RAGE was on the receiving end of a call we were unsure of, and it was a 30 point penalty as well as a 10 pointer, I believe called with G25 as its base. We had won the match, but still had questions as to why the calls had been made, I was the coach for my team and the alliance captain, and I went up after cooling down, and simply went up to Aidan and asked for a clarification even though the outcome would not have been effected, and he was more then willing to give me an explanation, and the ruling was based on a call that neither myself nor the drivers could see. We had backed up into a team that was in the loading zone, and we didn't know they were there. It was a legitimate call and we accepted it. While the adult mentors may get upset at this, being a student and coach, I knew the rules, and I had no issue with the ruling as it was called, and as such I went to my team right after the match and explained the reasoning behind the call, and they then realized it and calmed down.

Basically what I am trying to say is, have a STUDENT go up to the Head ref and ask them about the call, and then have that same student explain the ruling to the team. It usually helps to calm mentors down a bit when they see a student calm about a call.

Also it isn't the responsibility of the Ref to explain their actions, they shouldn't have to. They should have the respect of every one in that venue, because they are the ones who are visibly working the hardest during those 2 days(I say visibly because I know there are people working just as hard all 3 days, but they are more behind the scenes, like the regional directors and all the other volunteer support staff at the events.), and they usually show up on Thursday whenever possible to get a feel for how the game will be played out.

I would just like to give my sincerest gratitude to the referees and thank them for all their hard work and effort that they put forth to make these event what they are.

[Scott team 48]

I have two things in my head after reading this thread:
First: As a participant in the Buckeye Regional I was pleased for the most part with the reffing that went on, the parts I wasn't pleased on I came to the conclusion that I won't always be pleased and I move on. However, I do feel that if something displeases everybody, or almost everybody, than something should be done. I feel that at the driver meeting, at the beginning of the competition, the ref's should define what they feel aggressive driving is, and they should all define it the same. Our ref's were fair and did give a lot of warnings, there was a team (not pointing out #'s) who the ref's felt was designed solely to tip other robots over, and they gave them a warning that if they tipped a robot over they would be DQ'ed. They told them before they did it, and that team had a chance to correct a potential problem. Good job Ref's.
Second: Anyone who says that Travis is a bad mentor obviously doesn't know Travis. Travis works his tail off for our team day in and day out and we would be lost without him. Saying that Travis is a bad mentor hurts me, and I'm sure it hurts Travis. How many people do you know that will help you debug the program while your in Cleveland and he is in China? Not many, but Travis did last year. Travis is just trying to bring a problem into the light that can be quickly and (hopefully) easily corrected before anyone gets hurt by inconsistent calls made on the field. He didn't start this thread to bash anybody, nor did he do it to criticize the ref's, he did it because he cares about everybody involved in FIRST and he would hate to see bad blood cause the loss of teams. I don't need to talk to Travis to know this because I know Travis, and he doesn't do things to intentionally upset people, he is only trying for the greater good.

If my post has offended anyone, I'm sorry but thats just how I feel.
Travis, I support you 110% and I'm sure that I'm not alone in this.

[Steve W]

Consistency is all that is being asked for. This must come from the top with clear defined rules. I have ranted on this many times already so I will not continue along that line any longer.

The refs are volunteers. They always try their best. They don't always get the same direction. They don't always come to events with a full understanding of the rules. They have probably the hardest job in FIRST. No ref is really appreciated by both alliances all the time. Every call has 3 sides, mine, yours and theirs. I do not believe that refs pick on any team. We NEED to give them the best support that we can. Now let's see if FIRST can give them the same or more support.

[Ricky Q.]

My earlier post in this thread was my rant. I deleted it because I do not think my ranting about something that I cannot fix will help anything.

Are there issues? Yes. Will there always be issues? Yes. Impulse responses are not the way to fix these issues.

Until I can think of a miracle way to fix everything, I will keep my ranting to myself.

[Amanda Morrison]

Originally Posted by robo hottie71

Were those the right calls? Maybe, maybe not. Are we lucky that no one got seriously hurt? Probably. Should FIRST have realized that much scoring would take place at the wall with robots that have the ability to extend well above the top of the wall? ABSOLUTELY. Whether we have been playing for 4 weeks or not shouldn't matter at all - there needs to be a remidy made for next week or surely the Championship with some sort of ceiling.

Stu is exactly right- there is no rule. I suppose you could call this a gray area, created by FIRST? Another G25-esque rule that is left in the hands of the referees to make a judgment call?

I find it particularly irritating that people are comparing regional to regional when there is obviously no consistency at the regionals. FIRST is not infallible. Nobody is. Why should we assume that they are? Mistakes are always made, no matter whom is making them, and this needs to be realized in every single thread being made about this subject.

Has there never been a gray area created by FIRST? Has a referee never had to make a judgment call on a rule that does not completely cover an incident that might happen? It happens every year. Many people seem to single out regionals for their inconsistency, but I fail to see why this has any relevance. The referee crews were not the same. People are not the same. Every call that a referee makes is a judgment call, on whether or not they think a violation has happened. It happens. Life goes on.

In my first year of FIRST, I didn't understand gracious professionalism. At the last event of that year, a call was made on my team that cost us the win. In a fit, I stormed out of the event and sat on the bus, refusing to recognize those who won. Someone said to me, "The only thing that is making us look like losers is your inappropriate behavior". I'd like to think that gave me a lot better perspective on FIRST.

If the CD community is looking for ways to spend their energy after regionals, thank you threads are a good way to start. Posting on CD, yelling at competitions, and publicly stating that you are unsatisfied with gameplay, referee calls, and events has very little purpose. There is no obligation from FIRST to read what is written on these forums and make a clarification.

For being inspired students and mentors, we sure don't act that way a lot of the time. We're fallible. We get passionate, we act out, we don't think. We run across the field screaming/cursing at the referees and we expect FIRST to have a plentiful supply the next year. Many of the people who are giving knee-jerk reactions here on CD need to have their reflexes checked.

I don't agree with things that happen at events, but I'm also not one to cuss referees, sit in the stands, or complain for too long. It happens. Another FIRST kickoff comes around, we are excited again, gray areas are created.

Life goes on. FIRST goes on. And regardless of the bad calls, unclarified rules, 'bad' kit parts, gray areas, aggressive play, inappropriate behavior, inconsistent referees, and medals-that-should-rightfully-go-to-another-team comments, I come back every year. I hope everyone else posting here does, too.

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by Amanda Morrison

For being inspired students and mentors, we sure don't act that way a lot of the time. We're fallible. We get passionate, we act out, we don't think. We run across the field screaming/cursing at the referees and we expect FIRST to have a plentiful supply the next year. Many of the people who are giving knee-jerk reactions here on CD need to have their reflexes checked.

I'll agree, to a point. Humans, by nature, get emotional about things. Especially these 120-pound pieces of metal, plastic, and occasionally wood that we put together. So if something that someone feels shouldn't happen happens that involves the aforementioned 120-pound creation, I would be more surprised if they didn't react with some degree of negative feeling (inward or outward). Perhaps that's not how it should be in the world--but it's how it is in the world.

That being said, let's watch out for each other. If you sense someone's about to lose their cool with someone else, pull 'em aside and let them air it out between the two of you. Whether they're right and need to alert someone quickly or are wrong and just need a deep breath and a Mountain Dew, odds are that you'll be helping them cool off to the point that their beef (real or imagined) is at least processed enough to be edible.

I hope this post made sense--great posts are not meant to be made at two in the morning. But to put it simply, don't let your friends and teammates get too steamed about things in FIRST. It's supposed to be something we enjoy doing, remember?

[krunch79prez]

As a member of Team 79 and one who was standing there on the field I will admit I was blown away when the score came up in our final match at the Midwest Regional. Our alliance team 648, 79, and team 107 played to the best of our abilities and we lost. Do I have opinions on the match? Well of course I do, but I'm not going to express them because it is over and I understand that. I just want everyone posting to move on because yes G25 is a judgement rule and yes the ref's made a judgement call on the match. Teams 71, 111, and 537 had a great two days and won the regional fair and square, and they all have great robots. The refs are doing the best they can do and I thank them for coming out and volunteering for us.

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is can we please move on. I have moved on and I'm just gearing up for nationals so we can prove ourselves again and play against great teams like 71, 111, and 537. Or play with great teams like 648 and 107.

In closing I once again want to say congrats to teams 71, 111, and 537 on a great regional and victory, thank the refs and judges for their time and effort. And to be given the chance to play against two national champs at one time and have amazingly fun, competitive matches against them. They earned it, we lost, lets all move on. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Brent Herold
Team 79 President

[Al Skierkiewicz]

Originally Posted by krunch79prez

In closing I once again want to say congrats to teams 71, 111, and 537 on a great regional and victory, thank the refs and judges for their time and effort. And to be given the chance to play against two national champs at one time and have amazingly fun, competitive matches against them. They earned it, we lost, lets all move on. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Brent Herold
Team 79 President

Brent,
I can only tell you that we feared you throughout the competition. You have an awesome machine. We also have a healthy respect for Holland 107 and 648. You all were in the finals because you deserved it. I was cheering for you when you played and will continue to do so. Good Luck in Atlanta!

[opps12]

For all the people reading this post thread, if you did not attend the 2005 Midwest this year, it would helpful if you knew the context of this particular match. This was a semi final match #3, with the winner going to the finals. Second the teams playing are 71, 111, 537 vs 648, 79, 107. Third, the 10 point penalty for a G25 infraction was NEVER called throughout the entire competition, except for this instance. This call allowed teams 71, 111, 537 to advance to the finals by the score of 36 to 35 (teams 648, 79, 107 had a score of 45, but the 10 point penalty lowered their score to 35.)

In essence this call became a call which decides which alliance is going to finals, and since g25 is a judgment call, it is like the referees judging which team have the right to move on. There are arguments on both sides of the issue, and therein lies the problem. If a single call can change the course of a match so drastically, there should be no ambiguity as to whether the call should have been made or not. I liken this to a jury convicting a criminal despite the fact that there is doubt that the person did it or not.

In my opinion this is why there is so much discussion on this topic, the call was definitely questionable. I tried to present the case as unbiased as possible, and i hope this helps people decide what went on and what changes should be made for g25 rulings in Atlanta.

[AmyPrib]

First of all, did I miss the "breaking the plane" rule? I read the updates and rules again, and I haven't seen it. Or maybe it was just something implemented and announced at driver's meetings at events. Maybe I missed it.

From Chicago, here were few cases of inconsistencies I saw:

In one match I watched, a robot blatantly dangled a tetra high over the wall and did not get disabled, but later on, "pure breaking the plane" was a disablement. As Ricky stated, one match our entire alliance was disabled for this. I was about 15ft away from our robot doing it - I'm not even sure if the 1/2" of the endcap passed the thickness of the player station wall for that split second, but we were disabled. The tetra itself was 99% below the wall, as it was tilted downward in the field.. I thought this was a safety issue rule? I just don't agree with that case as being a safety issue. 269 was called for it in the corner area, where there is no wall, or people in the way. That's could be a pretty subjective call to tell if the tetra broke the plane. I feel like the "over the wall" should have been forseen with such a knowingly vertical game, and if it was considered, to create a rule against it at the beginning. But I guess, you just be careful near the wall and don't let anyone push you over the wall.

The aggressive play penalties seemed to get out of hand nearing the end. The calls on 79 have been discussed here, and I too couldn't figure out where the overly aggressive play was. Some were called for running into a robot from 2ft away or less - I hardly consider that ramming at high speed. I suppose if they did it for 2min non-stop, that could be considered overly aggressive, but not in this case. The only defense that appeared legal was pure blocking - forget about trying to bump a robot out of position.

There were some disables for accidental tipping, even though the rules clearly state that that could be part of normal game play. One robot had their arm extended, turned around to go to their auto loadzone, while another robot was sitting behind them and fell over when the other arm whacked into them. The first guy was disabled....
But yet others were tipped with clear intentional interaction, and nothing was called. (not saying the tipping was intentional, but the robot interaction was intentional).
The rules also state that it's legal to block or push on a tetra in possession of another robot.. Seems like there could be a lot of different interpretations of that one in combination of the intentional pushing high and tipping rule. It also says that attaching to a tetra and using it to tip over a robot is illegal. Seems like a robot could be pushing on a tetra, or preventing them from scoring with their arm legally, and get caught up in the tetra and accidentally tip the robot. Who knows how that would be called. One robot was pushed on high and fell over, but the initiator was not penalized because the partner of the tippee was in between. I don't recall that rule either. They were pushed on high, and tipped over. Period. The rules state that you can use and arm or gripper to prevent another from scoring. I'm legally allowed to push on a robot that has a tetra high in the air or to prevent them from scoring, but if it tips, am I penalized? Or is it only called if I push on the robot itself and it tips? I can totally understand why the refs would make inconsistent calls.

Yes, they are volunteers, they do their best, and we appreciate their efforts. But I agree with others that the inconsistency problem should be addressed in some manner, whether it's with the rule writing, ref training of some sort, or game design, or some other manner. I watched one robot get contacted in the HP load zone, and the ref was staring right at it - no penalty, but he also had a look of unsure-ness, as he kinda looked around to see if he was right or wrong. We were also disappointed in the re-play match where "a robot should have been disabled, but was not, therefore we're going to replay it". I guess I'm not sure how that happens.. if someone knew it, then why weren't they disabled at the time? When did they decide that someone should have been disabled, during or after the match? It just seemed that by now, inconsistencies should be minimal.

Overall Midwest was really exciting - right up there with Boilermaker competitiveness. I don't harbor any negative feelings regarding these issues, but it's tough for everyone involved to see these things happen and we'll all move on.

[Travis Hoffman]

Originally Posted by sw293

The final in Philly was turned on an excessive rough play call, where the refs accused the Long Island Regional champion and Chairmans winner and former Regional Sportsmanship Award winner of intentionally tipping another robot.

I think we should be careful of using words like "accused" here. If things were perfect, and they aren't, I don't think a ref's opinion of intentional vs. unintentional should ever have to play a role in his/her decision, if the rule clearly defines what is wrong and what isn't, and the governing body of the competition makes it clear that one and only one interpretation of that rule is acceptable. Sometimes, kids make mistakes, and they tip over a robot unintentionally, or they swing their tetras over a player station, accidentally causing a student to be struck. They should be penalized for their mistakes in just the same manner as the team that just went out, locked on to a target, and hit the gas, or drove around like hellions who didn't care where their arms or their tetras swung, and they should accept their mistake and the consequences that resulted from making it. Ideally, the only application of referee judgment would come in deciding which teams to warn/watch/disqualify because of their continued reckless play and which teams to leave alone because they know the kids made a simple mistake.

There is naturally going to be a fair amount of judgment the refs have to make when assessing penalties based upon G25, but it amazes me that the range of interpretations is so very widespread. Sometimes, the aggressor is so obviously over the top that they tip or damage another robot, yet no penalty is called. Other times, the aggressor plays defense according to the strict wording of the rule, yet they are flagged. G25 seems very clear to me, and I simply cannot understand why all these different interpretations of this and other rules have been permitted to be exercised at these events.

I've said this before - refs at any one event tend to be consistent with their rulings and generally call the game true to what is discussed in that event's initial refereeing meetings; it's the inconsistency from event to event that is the true driving force behind this frustration for so many.

What is so different about calling this year's game compared to last year's that is causing so much widespread heartache and disappointment for people? It boggles my mind. Last year's game was so memorable for me because I CANNOT remember one time where the refs and their calls became the focal point of the event - it was all about the great driving and hanging and ball gathering and Human Player accuracy - it was all about the excitement.

It's just so....disappointing to see so many discussions of this nature pop up this season. It's also disheartening to see the actions of these volunteer refs placed squarely in the spotlight of these debates. On the whole, they are not the direct source of all this frustration for teams. They are just trying to do their jobs the best they can based upon the game, rules, and communication FIRST has given them. I continue to be amazed that someone can't simply fix this problem - how hard is it to just communicate?! Perhaps there are forces and roadblocks at work behind the scenes that I will simply never comprehend, but I continue to hold out hope that the dedicated people at FIRST will find a way to make things better. Bharat was right - let's hope the championship is the place where FIRST makes things right, for if such field-to-field inconsistency as we've seen so far is permitted to plague the playing fields at Atlanta, where the separation of the venues is a matter of feet, not hundreds of miles, I shudder to think of the team reactions and repercussions that would result.

[Aidan F. Browne]

Originally Posted by T. Hoffman

I am quite alarmed and frustrated by the inconsistency with which refs are applying G25 and the *overaggressiveness* 10-pt. judgement call FIRST wedged into the rules after they were released... [ranting contiues]...

Wow. I don't know what to say other than I am disappointed that a FIRST mentor could set such a horrible example for his and other students.

You seem very focused on the impact to the students because of one call. I suggest that it is not the call, but your reaction to the call that creates any negative impact on the students.

Frankly, you do not get it. You do not get what FIRST is about. You do not get that it is not about a random ref call here or there. It is about what the students learn and are exposed to over the six week build and during the competitoin. No ref has ever taken away the FIRST experience from a student -- the vast majority of the time they add to it.

I am not passing judgement on this particular incident, but yes, refs sometimes make mistakes -- not just FIRST refs -- all refs. Even the highly trained, highly paid professional refs. I'm not going to justify FIRST's efforts to you other than to say that FIRST does go to considerable effort and expense to ensure that the Head Refs at each event are trained and communicate amoungst one-another throughout the season.

Lastly, if you feel you really need to make a gigantic banner with <G25> printed on it and bring it to Atlanta, I will suggest that maybe you need to reconsider taking the trip. The amount of negativism you would be displaying would be a big negative impact to the students -- much greater than any ref's call.

Aidan

[Billfred]

Originally Posted by Aidan F. Browne

You seem very focused on the impact to the students because of one call. I suggest that it is not the call, but your reaction to the call that creates any negative impact on the students.

I'll say it--both Aidan and Travis have valid points.

G25, unless there's a consistent plan in place to enforce it, will end in students, mentors, and quite possibly the random spectator off the street having a bad taste in their mouths. If someone gets too angry, they might just take their business to some other contest. You can say good riddance to a team that didn't "get it" all you want--but FIRST still lost a team. In my humble opinion, we want to avoid that.

However, we can't allow folks to harbor negativity over one rule. I've only been in FIRST for two years, but I've heard of some doozies in the past. Time will tell if G25 can join that list of doozies, but in the meantime, remember--it's just a game! These competitions are the sorts of things that only happen three (or for some, six, nine--or twelve or more) days out of the year. As such, the refs will have three (or for some, six, nine--or twelve or more) days of experience. We come together, do our thing, and split. The fewer bad feelings at the end of those days, the better.

So, what's a guy to do? I know that I'll be pestering 1293's drive team to ask the refs at Palmetto for as many details about G25 enforcement as they have, and for information on what caused every single flag we get. (Of course, my dream is to go the distance without getting a flag. )

[Brian Beatty]

There are a few points to address:

1)In my opinion, 79's defense was not a penalty. However, it was very aggressive and my vantage point was not as good as the refs.

2)I would prefer no defense. When that was tried in 2001, there was an uproar to bring back the interaction. In 2003, it wasn't battlebots, but it was right up next to it. It was a "game of denial" where offensive bots were completely nullified. This game is an attempt at a compromise.

3)Lighten up on the refs. These people are volunteers doing the best job they can with the game they were dealt trying to keep it as fair as possible. Yes, they were calling it tight(we were disabled twice at this regional), so you have to adjust.

4)As far as defensive penalties, my analogy goes back to my basketball days. Every now and then, it came a time to give a "hard foul". Most of the time, it was called a foul. Every now and then, it was called a "flagrant foul". Sometimes it was deserved, sometimes not. But as a caution to teams that play "hard defense", due to inconsistencies in human judgment, the risk will exist for a penalty under the current system.

5) FIRST is concerned about safety, but have only a 6'-8" wall as a barrier. Put up a 2-3 ft Plexiglas wall on top of the current operator's station. This will stop a whole bunch of disablements and make the game a more exciting game.

In conclusion, it was an unfortunate conclusion to the semifinal. Both alliances played well and were deserving. Let's hope that this experience makes for a better Nationals and a better FIRST.

Sincerely,

Brian Beatty

[Revolverx7]

Its not G25 itself I'm mad at, its the inconsistancy to witch it is called; to perplex the situation it is personaly frustrating that the refs called a drives meeting to go over what they would call as G25, and then called the exact opposite. Its these kind of discrepancies that dissapoint my competitive spirit. I can only hope for an elite group of consistant refs to be attending Atlanta this year.