Common Crescendo Missed Calls: How can we prevent them in the future?

To preface this, I’m 100% not criticizing any individual ref. I’m very rarely critical of any ref missing a split second call live on the field as I understand the difficulty. The two issues below spread across multiple refs/events and I suspect more of a process issue, but I would like some input from some of the refs here on CD.

  1. G414: No Full Court Shots. This was often seen when a team was feeding not getting completely over the wing-line or having their mid-field shots travel too far and over their own wing-line. There was an Einstein match (with the very best refs and an extra one) where it was missed at least 5 times. I suspect the issue is refs are assigned to watch their own quarter of the field and rarely check outside their quarter to see where the notes end up. This was also an issue in 2019 when alliances would have two robots in the opponents zone but in different sides of the field.

  2. Missed Traps. I’m actually not sure how common of an issue this was, but we had two playoff matches this year where our trap scores simply were not entered. I wasn’t involved in the second one, but the first one it seemed like they just forgot to enter it into the scoring panel. I’m not sure how the scoring panel works, but, if it doesn’t already, it should be a required input to record 0 traps scored.


From a rules/strategy person myself, I think this is a great topic to look into to make rules and penalties simpler and easier to call.

No one envies the responsibility refs have. Let’s make it so much easier for them.


At AVR this year we could have lost the event because a missed trap. In final 1 the score was initially 99 - 104 but our trap was not called. We brought it to the attention of the head ref and they fixed the score to be 104 -104. If it was not for that fix after our loss in the final two the event would have ended and final 3 & 4 wouldn’t have happened.

The thing that has me most confused is how its possible to miss a large orange donut in front of you.

I would say a fix for this would be more automated scoring by using a limit switch or something but I feel like the Amp this year was a disaster in terms of automated scoring.

I think FIRST should try to aim more for the Chezy Champs style of rules where they try to ease the burden on the refs as much as possible.


Our first incident was Finals 2 of Central Missouri. We initially lost the match by 2 or 3, noticed they didn’t score our trap, refs agreed, but ruled it a field fault and thus replayed the match. We ended up winning the replay, so it didn’t matter in the end.

Our second incident was playoff match 1 on Johnson. We won the match without the traps so no replay or score adjustment was done.

It must be entered, but it is so easy to get into the habit of hitting “No, No, No …” for the TRAPS and HIGH NOTES.

Because there’s a ROBOT between you and the TRAP


To be at least a tiny bit fair, the fact that a note was in the trap was not always that visible. Robots that trapped successfully somewhat frequently obstructed the view of the trap.

I don’t think that excuses missing it, just calling out that I don’t think it is necessarily as in your face as it seems.

I suspect the biggest issue here is that trap scoring was rare, but refs had to punch in “no trap” for every match without a trap, and that just became habit. I think the system in place (requiring explicit “yes” or “no” on each trap) was about all that the scoring system itself could have done, it’s on the refs themselves.

Automated scoring of it would have helped and would be easy in isolation, but would have required running cabling out to the stages which I don’t think would have been worth the tradeoff.

Does anyone have what the ref’s display looks like this year?

The information is not public.

I can say that there’s a screen that has a spot for each note. It must either have a note or have a nothing, and the nothing comes first when toggling.

On the full-court shooting, it would often take 2 refs to call, one on launch and one on landing/stopping.

What is different about chezy champs for the refs?

All foul input is handled by the HR after the match. Scoring is offloaded to Official Scorers or automation where possible.

That second part I’d like to see in official events!

1 Like

And that is a situation where the rules themselves make things difficult to call. If the ref that sees the launch watches to see where the note lands, other things in front of that ref may be missed.

Something that was good this year were the various zone penalties. It didn’t matter what color robot was inside the zone; if there was contact, it was a foul.


Is this after the score was posted on the field screen? I am curious because it seemed like at Central MO a scoring fix was not possible even though everyone seemed to agree that our trap was simply missed. I do understand that as the rules are written it is technically a field fault and a replay (However, I don’t know if i fully agree with the rule itself) .

It seemed like there is some inconsistency to how some events handle situations such as this… according to the rules you should have replayed the match per section 10.3 “D. errors by FIELD STAFF .” at least that is how it was described to us by the event FTA after consulting with FIRST HQ.

Yes it was because I remember re recording the tie outcome of the match.

We caught the mistake in the previous score board because I don’t believe it was up on TBA yet


Referee Training specifically asks for refs not to participate with “I am a ref, so here’s how I would call this” type of posts on chief delphi.


This strikes me as outlandish, which match was this?

I did a quick scan and saw a match where it appeared there were 3 instances, and 2 were called, though both as fouls when subsequent infractions should’ve been technical fouls.

I have always taken this as instructions during season so don’t answer hypothetical questions about what should and should not be a penalty.

I have publicly engaged in posts and offered insights as someone who has been referee in the past or was for that game after the game is done. I have yet to get in trouble for that so I think referees offering ways for rules to be improved or changes to refereeing in general is fine so long as you don’t speak during the season about hypothetical calls.

A prime example of this type of thing is the Official scorer role from 2015, 2019 and 2023 that was a direct result from the community and the referees not liking how scoring was done in 2014.


I counted 6 instances on the red alliance in Match 2. Since no tech fouls were assigned, that means at most one was called and 5 missed. We’re pretty lucky 35 points in penalties didn’t impact the outcome of a match!

I think this is a little different than the typical “Is this legal?” CD question where I completely agree we don’t want teams going to an event doing something illegal and saying “Well, a head ref on CD said it was legal!”. I think I’m more getting at @GaryVoshol 's point of we have a rule that’s difficult to actually call and enforce. How can we actually fairly enforce a rule like this in the future?

1 Like

You’re right, there are some missed calls here. I count 5 instances, there are 2 fouls total, I assume both for this, though I really can’t tell what the first foul is for.
It appears the head ref and quadrant ref discuss it a few times mid-match. Perhaps had the red alliance won been winning at match-end, they would’ve taken time to consider the appropriate penalties to assign.

I agree its definitely a bit tricky. A few of the shots dont make it fully into their wing because they’re stopped by another robot before that.
A few of the instances, the robot shoots the note just a bit before they cross the line, though the robot eventually crosses the line, and this timing may be difficult to parse.
But for sure there’s a few times where you see the passer shoots the note without ever even entering the center and it crosses right through the center.

But I don’t personally feel that the note making it to the other side or not is what makes this foul difficult to call. With this type of gameplay, its generally understood that the robots are TRYING to shoot the note into their own wing, so the scrutiny needs to be on the robots position when they shoot by the ref in that quadrant.
Only when they see the robot is not fully past the line should they follow through and see where the note ended up.

To me, what could be seen as difficult to call is the “repeated” tech foul, as I believe that’s assigned per robot, not per alliance. Considering a robot could’ve “repeated” this foul after 90 seconds in a match goes by, remembering if it should be put in as a foul or tech foul could be problematic.