Improving Officiating at FIRST Events

[Madison]

I am certain that the folks at FIRST are concerned about providing a consistent experience to all teams and are making an effort to get that to happen. This season's instructional course for referees represents a good step in that direction; but coupled with the ambiguity of what constitutes a violation of many of the rules, it is ineffective. More needs to be done.

FIRST has had good success in retaining the institutional knowledge of regional directors, field technical advisors and other staff at the 'executive' level of events. Officiating staff should be considered to be of the same importance as these other key volunteers and absolutely must have existing knowledge of a team's experience as they work through a competition season. Their knowledge must be maintained and informed by the experience of operating on a team.

It is absurd to think that the time and effort invested into a competition season by so many teams -- most of whom attend only a single event -- is ultimately at the mercy of someone who's only connection to FIRST and to the game is a conference call, an online training course and two days spent at an event. The competition is a means to an end and no amount of bad officiating is going to take away what kids learn during the season, thankfully, as otherwise these competitions would be a joke.

Generally,

• Officiating staff -- all of them -- must be retained from year to year and have investment in the program beyond two days per year of involvement.
• The officiating staff must be more involved in early development of game rules so as to weed out as much ambiguity as possible. Referees have no place determining intent during a FIRST match and shouldn't be asked to do so.
• They must know the rules. Institutional knowledge will improve understanding of a complex rule book, but there is no excuse for a team of referees that doesn't know the rule book chapter and verse, so to speak. I spend a considerable amount of time ensuring that our robot complies with every rule and I don't think it's too much to expect that the referees would spend as much time learning the rules for their part.
• Teams absolutely must be informed after each match of which rules they violated. I don't care about the schedule. Imagine a football game wherein they never announced what the action was that drew a penalty, nor who was responsible and how the crowd might react to that. Ambiguity is a sure fire way to create discontent with the staff.

I'm not going to pretend that I'm not exceptionally angered by the officiating at the Oregon Regional this weekend, but that we have a student dedicated to watching the referees is absurd. Something ought to be done to eliminate inconsistency in officiating in as many ways as possible and the only way to make that happen is to talk about how discrepancies appear and figure out ways of eliminating them in the future. A training course is a step in the right direction, but we need more.

[Daniel_LaFleur]

Originally Posted by M. Krass

I am certain that the folks at FIRST are concerned about providing a consistent experience to all teams and are making an effort to get that to happen. This season's instructional course for referees represents a good step in that direction; but coupled with the ambiguity of what constitutes a violation of many of the rules, it is ineffective. More needs to be done.

FIRST has had good success in retaining the institutional knowledge of regional directors, field technical advisors and other staff at the 'executive' level of events. Officiating staff should be considered to be of the same importance as these other key volunteers and absolutely must have existing knowledge of a team's experience as they work through a competition season. Their knowledge must be maintained and informed by the experience of operating on a team.

It is absurd to think that the time and effort invested into a competition season by so many teams -- most of whom attend only a single event -- is ultimately at the mercy of someone who's only connection to FIRST and to the game is a conference call, an online training course and two days spent at an event. The competition is a means to an end and no amount of bad officiating is going to take away what kids learn during the season, thankfully, as otherwise these competitions would be a joke.

Generally,

• Officiating staff -- all of them -- must be retained from year to year and have investment in the program beyond two days per year of involvement.
• The officiating staff must be more involved in early development of game rules so as to weed out as much ambiguity as possible. Referees have no place determining intent during a FIRST match and shouldn't be asked to do so.
• They must know the rules. Institutional knowledge will improve understanding of a complex rule book, but there is no excuse for a team of referees that doesn't know the rule book chapter and verse, so to speak. I spend a considerable amount of time ensuring that our robot complies with every rule and I don't think it's too much to expect that the referees would spend as much time learning the rules for their part.
• Teams absolutely must be informed after each match of which rules they violated. I don't care about the schedule. Imagine a football game wherein they never announced what the action was that drew a penalty, nor who was responsible and how the crowd might react to that. Ambiguity is a sure fire way to create discontent with the staff.

I'm not going to pretend that I'm not exceptionally angered by the officiating at the Oregon Regional this weekend, but that we have a student dedicated to watching the referees is absurd. Something ought to be done to eliminate inconsistency in officiating in as many ways as possible and the only way to make that happen is to talk about how discrepancies appear and figure out ways of eliminating them in the future. A training course is a step in the right direction, but we need more.

Complaining about the referees does no good and undermines their authority. This is not what we want to teach the students.

If you have a suggestion (or suggestions) as to make it better, then please post them here and be specific.

I'm not picking on you as I understand your frustration ... I am instead trying to turn your frustration into positive action.

[EricVicenti]

I agree that the referees have been very inconsistent. After each match, the penalties are always unpredictable. I also found it ridiculous that, at least in the Oregon Regional, there were no refs on Thursday. So when the refs started on Friday, they were not familiar with many of the penalties.

[Brandon Martus]

I've removed a bunch of personal attacks and other posts not having to do with officiating. Let's try to have some constructive criticism.

Those involved in the removed discussion, please continue that via email or private message. Let's keep this thread about the rules and if they are or are not being enforced properly and consistently .. whichever the case.

[Matt H.]

I would like to repost the noninflammatory part of my post.
I believe that with the massive number of rules and the numerous rules focusing on intent regionals are now impossible to accurately ref in real time. Due to the high speed nature of the games and overall competitions teams are often left completely baffled as to why they received 50 penalty points often not even knowing which robot the penalty was called on.
There is a need for some kind of video review system--although many would say this is too complex or expensive consider the regionals as they stand now. Video from the regionals is transmitted around the world and many regionals are held in stadiums where video replay is a common feature of events. First most definitely has the technical skills to pull this off.

[EricH]

Originally Posted by Matt H.

There is a need for some kind of video review system--although many would say this is too complex or expensive consider the regionals as they stand now. Video from the regionals is transmitted around the world and many regionals are held in stadiums where video replay is a common feature of events. First most definitely has the technical skills to pull this off.

Matt, I'm going to refer you to a thread from after the 2005 season. I just want you to read the first five pages or so--after that, the thread got really ugly. It's got a pretty good discussion of the topic of instant replay and why it should and shouldn't be used in FIRST.

On to the original topic of this thread...

Originally Posted by M. Krass

Generally,

• Officiating staff -- all of them -- must be retained from year to year and have investment in the program beyond two days per year of involvement.
• The officiating staff must be more involved in early development of game rules so as to weed out as much ambiguity as possible. Referees have no place determining intent during a FIRST match and shouldn't be asked to do so.
• They must know the rules. Institutional knowledge will improve understanding of a complex rule book, but there is no excuse for a team of referees that doesn't know the rule book chapter and verse, so to speak. I spend a considerable amount of time ensuring that our robot complies with every rule and I don't think it's too much to expect that the referees would spend as much time learning the rules for their part.
• Teams absolutely must be informed after each match of which rules they violated. I don't care about the schedule. Imagine a football game wherein they never announced what the action was that drew a penalty, nor who was responsible and how the crowd might react to that. Ambiguity is a sure fire way to create discontent with the staff.

On some points, I agree. On others, I do not fully agree. I definitely agree with the first point, but would like to say that that is not always possible, so some refs will be new every year. As to the second point, Aidan Browne is a ref and on the GDC. As I remember, Dave said at kickoff that Aidan was not happy during game development several times. Now we know why.

I definitely agree on knowing the rules. I think that's what the instructional course is for. I also agree on the fourth point. Every penalty should be explained, at least to the teams. When the penalties are announced in football and soccer, the players are told even if the audience is not.

[Matt H.]

Originally Posted by EricH

Matt, I'm going to refer you to a thread from after the 2005 season. I just want you to read the first five pages or so--after that, the thread got really ugly. It's got a pretty good discussion of the topic of instant replay and why it should and shouldn't be used in FIRST.

Having review that nasty little argument I'm going to let the issue drop with my final statement being that times are changing and as games become more penalty intensive something will be needed.

To return to the original topic I believe that due to the complexity of the rules no amount of training or officiating will ensure a correct call. My parents are lawyers--the wording of the rules now bears a remarkable similarity to the wording of the Arizona revised statues especially when dealing with intent. I think this problem will be best resolved by the game design committee and a shorter rule book.

[Richard Wallace]

Originally Posted by Matt H.

... I think this problem will be best resolved by the game design committee and a shorter rule book.

A shorter rule book is a noble goal, and one that will not be easy to achieve.

FIRST's shortest rule book was its first one. When competitors complain about fairness, well-meaning rule makers respond by adding more rules. After sixteen years, the rules get pretty complex. I have the greatest admiration for the GDC because they have the toughest job in FIRST.

[Guy Davidson]

Originally Posted by Cory

I was going to refrain from involving myself in this discussion, but I think it needs to be pointed out that referees ALREADY should be telling the teams who had penalties assessed against them the reason for such penalties. Every event I refereed in 2005, we did this, and I can't recall our team ever leaving the field having not known why our alliance received penalties, since then.

If you receive a penalty, and the head ref does not explain why to you, my response would be that under no circumstances should you leave the field prior to receiving an explanation.

As to challenging calls via video replay-search for this topic and you'll find numerous threads that discuss it. The consensus seems to be too expensive, too much time, too impractical. Let's face it--high school football is a much more "important" competition in terms of viewership, number of fans attending games, etc. Yet it doesn't have replay. The day video replay is instituted in FIRST will be a very sad one, in my opinion.

When we went to ask, we fully expected the refs to tell us on whom the penalty was and when. That's the way we remember it from years past. However, they didn't. Since it didn't affect the result of the match, we just left it at that.

In San Jose and Las Vegas, we will probably be more adamant about knowing what the ruling is, especially if it affects the result of the match.

I also completely agree about video reply. It's expensive (you would need many cameras and angles to be able to make conclusive calls) and time consuming, and just not necessary in FIRST, in my opinion.

[bduddy]

The problem with the "it's Week 1, don't worry about it" mentality is that for many teams, Week 1 may hold their last regional, and indeed, last competition of the year. And although the competition is not the most important part of FIRST, it is not easy for any team to feel particularly inspired, or have very much fun, when their last six weeks, no, last year of work is wiped away by a mistake. Of course, it is not possible to eliminate mistakes, and I hope that no one here thinks that any bad decisions have ever been made on purpose by FIRST referees. Still, the referees have no right to be immune from being criticized when their decisions affect so many so much. When I say "criticism", I don't mean personal attacks, or any other types of attacks, but suggestions to improve, like some of the ones that have been expressed here; it seems that, at times, there is hostility in this forum even towards those.

That being said, I have not seen any of these complained-about incidents, and I have no opinion other than to say that all calls should be announced and that mistakes are bad

[Rick TYler]

I'm going to be Scorekeeper for the new Seattle Regional, and spent last Saturday at the scoring station in Portland. The rules for this game are, as we all know, brutally complicated. Combine difficult rules with volunteers who don't get to spend years honing their craft like Major League umpires do, you are going to get inconsistent calls. The only real solution is to play the same game every year so that the officials become as expert as professional officials. Short of that, training and careful attention to detail are the best we can do.

For one, this might be a cautionary tale about games with complex rules. Aim High was a piece of cake by comparison. I'm sure the GDC will include this kind of feedback in developing future competitions. Meanwhile, I'm going back to studying the scorekeeping software. Frankly, I'm really afraid of it...

[bduddy]

I probably should have posted this sooner, but these are my suggestions for improving the officiating based -solely- on what I saw at SVR. If the officiating elsewhere fixes these problems or creates new ones, I don't know enough about them.

-Yes, G22 (crossing a line backwards) is written clearly, and yes, it was enforced, as far as I could tell, perfectly. However, it was still deciding far too many games, and most of the time, the punishment did not fit the crime. Nearly all sports have rules that are clear on the books, but not enforced (examples off top of head: MLB-tagging 2nd on a DP, NBA-traveling, NFL-holding, NHL-everything, really). Why can't G22 be the same way? If you turn around and drive across a line to get a trackball or something, that should be a penalty. But when there's no advantage gained, there shouldn't be a penalty.

-As for G42 (interfering with a hurdler), though, I have to say that I don't think the rule was being enforced as written. It only bans "overt, blatant, or agressive contact"-at SVR, they were calling everything; accidental bumps, brushes as a robot went past, everything. I'm sure the call to apply the rule like that came from somewhere, but I disagree with it and I think those kinds of calls did not match with the spirit of the game.

-On the flip side, G41 (the "bump to pass" rule) was not being called nearly often enough. Several times during the competition I urged our drive team to block, block more, because even though they were clearly trying the refs were not even counting off six seconds. I saw only a handful of counts (the slow flag waving) during the competition, and I don't think an actual penalty was given even once. An area which I believe the refs should especially focus on is blocking in front of a line so that an opposing robot crosses the line and is then blocked, so they have nowhere to go. I heard it mentioned during the drivers meeting that drivers should bump and wait, but this was never called or counted off; I noted several occasions where this caused G22 penalties on the non-blocking team. Unforunately I can't find any videos of this, or I would provide an example...

-I don't know all the facts on this, so I am cautious in stating this, but a member of 254 stated here that they informed the referees of their incorrect interpretation of G14 (scoring of bonus points) before the final match, which was overturned because of same. If this is true, it would indicate some kind of communication problem among the referees, which I hope can be resolved.

So I don't seem overly pessimistic, I will now provide an equal number of praises:

-I didn't spend too much time in the pits, but from what I heard the inspectors did a great job, although I must question their wisdom in allowing our robot to take the field with a poof ball duct-taped to our arm

-Contrary to reports from other regionals, I never noticed any scoring problems; the one I did see was, I believe, corrected in the final score.

-The referees had to spend three whole days constantly repairing the field (sometimes after every match!), and somehow they managed to keep it together the whole time

-The referees did a good job enforcing some of the less commonly applied rules, such as G47 (team members in the alliance area), G39 (robot entanglement), etc.

Also, as for the "referee test", I am still curious as to why it has not been relased. I believe the stated reason was so to not confuse the teams, but I don't think that's good enough. Either whoever created it thinks we're not smart enough to see information in two different ways, or (much worse) the test does not match up with the actual rules. If there is another reason, or I am misinterpreting the original one, I would love to hear it.

[Paul Copioli]

Madison,

I suggest you bring this up directly to FIRST, specifically Aiden Brown. I am sure he will welcome all suggestions and ways to improve. He and Dave Lavery were at St. Louis this weekend and were very interested in the referees and the scoring system. By the way, the reffing at St. Louis was excellent. They did a great job explaining the violations and were consistent with their calls.

There were some discrepancies with counting lines and counting trackballs, but I suspect that will get worked out soon.

In any case, the most effective way to get things done regarding this is directly with Aiden. Specific examples and situations are always best.

-Paul

[Madison]

Originally Posted by Paul Copioli

Madison,

I suggest you bring this up directly to FIRST, specifically Aiden Brown. I am sure he will welcome all suggestions and ways to improve. He and Dave Lavery were at St. Louis this weekend and were very interested in the referees and the scoring system. By the way, the reffing at St. Louis was excellent. They did a great job explaining the violations and were consistent with their calls.

There were some discrepancies with counting lines and counting trackballs, but I suspect that will get worked out soon.

In any case, the most effective way to get things done regarding this is directly with Aiden. Specific examples and situations are always best.

-Paul

Thanks, Paul.

I was a bit afraid that any discussion I tried to have about what could be done would be inappropriate at this time in the season. Everyone's busy and I have no doubt that everyone involved is absolutely dedicated to making things as good as they can be. I am interested in watching the season progress and, from that, developing a more substantive set of ideas about what steps can be taken to make things better for everyone.

It's difficult to point out specific examples in many cases because, again, teams were not being told that they were penalized. My knowledge of what confusion there was comes from my experience on the field as a coach and from our scouts in the stands that were watching the referees.

Specifically, there was concern that:

• teams were being penalized for driving clockwise within a quadrant, but not crossing backward through the plane of a line.
• all contact outside of the bumper zone was being penalized.
• there need be more clarification about protection for hurdlers (<G42>), particularly with respect to how it applies to machines in between the hurdler and the overpass
• signaling to pass using a trackball in your possession was disallowed
• teams were not being told what penalties they'd incurred
• it's difficult to determine if you've been signaled to pass and most teams weren't sure what to look for from the refs regarding whether it'd happened and how much time they had to move.

There were good things that happened, too.

• Our robot got caught up in another robot and we were penalized for entanglement. The referee that called it came up to us and explained what happened and why the penalty was called. That's perfect and it's much nicer to know it's coming than scramble after the score is announced to figure out what's happened.
• During the elimination rounds, many teams -- ours included -- assumed that we'd be allowed a pit crew. The head ref. quickly informed us that it wasn't allowed and was able to let us know which section of the manual had the relevant information and that it had been deleted. Again, great. As soon as she said that it'd been deleted, I recalled exactly what she was talking about.
• After confusion about how <G42> was being enforced on Friday, the refs included a brief explanation on Saturday morning of what they were looking for.
• Early Friday, one referee stood out by calling many, many more penalties than the others. She was replaced or moved into a different position that made the officiating more consistent. This was FANTASTIC and demonstrated that the refs were trying. That matters.

[Ben Mitchell]

I agree completely with the original poster.