I hate to come here to complain, but I have heard many points about the referees not knowing the rules and just had my first experience with this at the MSHSL state championship (Minnesota). We were competing in eliminations (I won’t state the teams) and one of our alliance partners were blamed of touching another robot that was in the safe zone. They called a technical foul on us, but it should have been only 3 pts, because (if I’m wrong, just say in the comments) if they were loading, that’s 20 pts, but if they’re just in the safe zone and getting prepared to load, it’s 3, I may be wrong. This costed us the match. In the second match, one of their alliance partners was trying to block our full court shooter by extending an 84 inch blocker up, this is totally ok, but they weren’t always in their auto zone. Myself and another alliance partner began to tell the ref during the match that he couldn’t do that, that it was a technical foul. Right at the end of the match, the ref finally got the point and brought it up to the head ref. After the match was over, we lost by about 8 pts, but they didn’t give us the multiple technical fouls they had, because they ‘didn’t see it.’ We ended up getting 3rd in state, but this really frustrates me. I thought that the refs should have known the rules a bit better than what they did. thoughts?
That team, was forced outside of their auto zone. Technically, according to the rules, the team that forced them out of the autozone should be given a technical. The rules also state (and this was brought up at multiple driver’s meetings) that if a blocker is pushed out of the zone, by another team, they have to appear to make all possible attempts to get back into the zone to avoid penalties. If at anytime it appears that they are not doing that (ie: picking up frisbees, being fed), then it is a technical. The team in question, in my opinion was trying to get back as they made no attempts to get frisbees or defend otherwise. So really, there was no technical unless that team changed strategies. But overall, I did notice a difference if the “calling of fouls” from Galileo to here.
I understand where you are coming from, but as I was on the field I noticed multiple times in which the team wasn’t making an attempt at getting back to their auto zone, sometimes they were, but I remember them being at about half court with their blocker up and no one by them. I know it’s over and done, but I thought I would bring it up. Thanks for the input
We all know it’s frustrating when you see something the ref doesn’t.
The rule you’re looking for is G30:
Regardless of who initiates the contact, a ROBOT may not contact an opponent ROBOT
contacting its PYRAMID or touching the carpet in its LOADING ZONE.Violation: FOUL. If purposeful or consequential, TECHNICAL FOUL. If an opponent’s CLIMB is affected, each affected opponent ROBOT will be granted credit for a Level 3 CLIMB at the end of the MATCH.
So, it doesn’t have to be loading at the time, it just has to be “consequential”, which is a tough judgement call to make.
I can tell you regarding the refs (As I know all of them)… this wasn’t their first show this season. Or even their second. I’m pretty sure they all were at both the Duluth and Minneapolis regionals. Additionally, I know the technical for a blocker being out of the autozone did get called earlier during at least one qualification match (I saw it happen, saw the flag, and shared comments between matches with the refs that that particular foul was the difference in the score between a win and a loss).
Again, it sucks to see something that the refs didn’t, or expect a foul to be called when it isn’t, but unfortunately that’s the nature of the game.
Ok, so I was wrong on the loading, my apologies. I wasn’t sure about it but that’s what I thought the rule was, and I’m not sure whether or not it was intentional or if someone pushed them into them, I was on the other side of the field so I’m not sure. Yes, it is unfortunate, but this is just like a sport and you have to play it by the refs, and sometimes, stuff happens.
Relavent Rules:
G18-1
Strategies aimed solely at forcing the opposing ALLIANCE to violate a rule are not in the spirit of FRC and are not allowed. Rule violations forced in this manner will not result in assessment of a penalty on the target ALLIANCE .Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL
**G30
**Regardless of who initiates the contact, a ROBOT may not contact an opponent ROBOTcontacting its PYRAMID or
touching the carpet in its LOADING ZONE.Violation: FOUL. If purposeful or consequential, TECHNICAL FOUL. If an opponent’s CLIMB is affected, each affected opponent ROBOT will be granted credit for a Level 3 CLIMB at the end of the MATCH.
How did your partner touch them in the loading zone? Was it purposeful or consequential? If so then the tech foul was correct.
G22
ROBOT height (as defined in relation to the ROBOT) must be restricted as follows during the MATCH:If in contact with the carpet in its AUTO ZONE and/or its PYRAMID, ≤ 84 in.
Otherwise, ≤ 60 in.Violation: FOUL. If continuous or repeated violations, TECHNICAL FOUL.
If it happens once it is a FOUL. If it happens continuously or repeatedly, then it is a technical foul. If the 84" blocker is pushed out of the autozone by the opposing alliance, they need to make all attempts to get back into the zone (as mentioned in driver’s meetings.) If they do, just a regular FOUL will be called.
Don’t talk to a ref during the match, they are just a little bit preoccupied, you know, reffing and all. You wouldn’t want to talk to them and have them miss a call would you?
Also, I hope you didn’t leave the alliance station, because if you did then you should have been red carded. If you didn’t leave the alliance station that means you were yelling at the ref, which violates G-18.
G18
All Teams must be civil towards other Teams, competition personnel, and event attendees.Violation: Potential RED CARD for violations in the ARENA.
Actually, I would prefer if someone told me that something was happening. In sports, if something is happening that the ref doesn’t see, obviously you wait until the play is over to tell them, but you do tell them. In this case, we knew that they wouldn’t change the score unless we told them during the match, so we did our best to have them realize what was going on. And I’m not sure if it was accidental or not, I couldn’t see it, it may or may not have been, but we got the foul.
You are also talking about a set of rules about which there has been a lot of difficulty this season. We also have a full court shooter and found that G30, G22 and G18-1 were called differently at every event we attended - and were generally inconsistent at each event (including at Championships). They calls have varied so much, that I have seen something one match be called a technical on the defending bot, then, when the exact situation arises in another, it is a technical against the FCS. I have been somewhat privvy to discussions about this rule amongst referees and have learned that they disagree (yes, even different head referees) as to how several scenarios should be called. From what I can tell, most referees recognize the ambiguity in the rules and, frankly, hate the G18-1 rule. The best bet is to talk to referees before competition and get clarification as much as possible.
Example of ambiguity:
Defender bot puts up 80" blocker. FCS cannot shoot over it. FCS loads hopper and driver to the autoline. Blocker stays in front of FCS, but does not have the power to push back. FCS crosses autoline, pushing blocker across in the process. FCS then shoots from loaded hopper.
G22, says that the blocker cannot be across the autoline - period.
G18-1 says that the FCS cannot have a strategy with the sole purpose of causing a tech.
Now what? The blocker was shoved across teh autoline - maybe it could have avoided it, but it certainly was not intentional and not even under its own power. Does it really deserve a tech? At teh same time, if the blocker were 20" shorter, there would be no issue. Does the attachement of, say, a pool noodle suddenly make a defender robot immune to being shoved out of the way? At teh same time, teh FCS did force the blocker across the line - it employed a strategy that drove the other bot to a foul. However, the rule states that it cannot employ a strategy with the SOLE purpose of drawing the foul - it did go up and shoot. It could not shoot before, as it was being blocked. Are we going to make it illegal for the robot to try to find an open shot?
On Archimedes, this situation was ruled like this: No foul against either side - the defender has the right to defend and the FCS has the right to find an open shot. However, once across teh autoline, the tall bot must immediately return to its autozone, lest it be called for a technical. However, even on Archimedes, we had one match in which the head referee told us that if we (FCS) were to persist in doing that, we’d be charged with a technical - this was resolved after a long discussion.
Other questions: What if, after crossing the auto line, the FCS were to shoot and the blocker, due to its tall (and now illegal) height, were to inadvertently block a disk or two?
In other words, let’s be kind to the refs on this - the real issue is an ambiguity in the rules.
OP, you will have more credibility if you link to videos of the matches you mention. I’ve learned that students on the field (even our own) often misinterpret what is happening because of their perspective.
In one controversial match of ours, from last year, a mentor from the opposing alliance wrote a very detailed description based on a first hand account from one of his drive team members. The only problem was that the video showed that the account was completely wrong. I’ve seen things like this happen on CD often enough that I don’t believe any claims about too harsh or missed penalties unless those claims are backed up by video.
I myself have had the experience of seeing a ref miss a penalty which I thought was clear as day. Then I go back and review the video and see that the ref was right after all.
This is especially terrible this year. The differences in sight lines between refs and drive teams are incredibly difficult to mitigate. I’ve watched (and video reviewed) fouls that are clear from the alliance station but just plain impossible to see from the ref stand. In most of them, we’d have needed a perfect storm of a different ref looking into the area from their angle and the close ref being several feet to either direction for the foul to get called.
I’ve felt this as a ref, too: seeing an interaction that I know can be diagnosed by every coach on both alliances, but I just plain could not see. At the same time, I’ve been yelled at by teams for what basically amount to optical illusions for them. Every incident type has happened more this year than in any other game whose field I’ve stepped on. It’s painful.
Refs at a level like MSHSL know the rules, they just have to interpret them based on what they see on the field and what they understand them to mean. Particularly with so many “intentional/purposeful/consequentials” this year, it’s really hard to say that a call is wrong…or right. Do be careful of accusing anyone of not knowing the rules without having checked them yourself, though.
For your first point, it is a judgment call by the refs. Anything that is consequential (ie slowing down their loading) is supposed to be called a technical foul. I believe they called this correctly because I bet the contact slowed their getting into position. If the bump did not affect them getting into position in any way, it should only be 3 pts.
Your second point is only slightly more clear cut. It is still somewhat a judgement call. I believe they went over this in the drivers meeting at all 3 Minnesota competitions I’ve been to this year. If the 84” robot was pushed out and tries to get directly back in, there is no foul. If they make any other move to pick up a disk, play defense, play offense, or interfere with other robots it will be called a 20pt technical. I watched a robot get called for 2 of the 20pt technicals in 1 match for driving outside of their auto zone at the MSHL tournament. The refs were definitely aware of this penalty so they either didn’t see it or deemed that they were pushed out and trying to get back in.
I’m sorry you feel your season ended because of referee calls. You guys had a great bot and were good competition!
I most definitely would have looked at the video before posting, but I could not find one.
I definitely understand that it is a judgement call, all sports have to deal with refs, and I respect that, and maybe I’m totally wrong, I’m not sure. I wish there was a video of it so I could see it, I was just getting others thoughts and ideas.
The easiest thing to do in the world is to stand on the sidelines, point a finger and criticize.
If you really think the refs are so bad step up and show them how it’s done.
Volunteers are in short supply and we always need more.
As my previous comment states, I said i respect that we have to deal with refs, it’s okay, I wanted to get others opinions, and for that matter, possibly a video proving me wrong or right.
We noticed the refs being extremely cautious/lenient at North Star on Friday this year for calling fouls/technicals. We even joked about it during our scouting meeting, up to the point where we were going to have our mentor sit by the field with the rule book on Saturday to be able to show the refs the how it should be ruled, even if that meant helping our opponents. Luckily, they got their game together on Saturday, and made ~95% of the correct calls.
I give refs credit (they are volunteers after all!) for doing their best, but I suggest to all the head refs to have their refs practice during practice matches, before their rulings count. Also I believe that some of the rules this year could have been better clarified to allow refs to make better calls. From experience as a ref at a FLL this past season, there is no way to be completely ready to ref an event. I suggest that FRC makes a video like the one that Scott made for FLL & shows it to the refs. I felt as if that video helped me understand the FLL game a bit better, as an outsider.
Thank you for the input, and I totally agree. The scoring system and the fouls were quite weird this season. I really appreciate the refs, but sometimes I can’t help but be a little frustrated, but that’s fine. I’m not blaming our whole season on them, there is definitely things we did wrong.
We were on the alliance that was suffering referee insufficiencies mentioned in the beginning. I also must mention however this was an off season event. Quality was not a necessary factor. People were simply playing the game in a somewhat recognized event.
I do see where my teams’ alliance partner would be coming from. This is a bad representation of FIRST and disregards gracious PROFESSIONALISM. But again, this was barely a recognized event and irrelevant as far as actual FIRST endorsed events played.
No one is perfect, and I would just like to thank the refs for their time at our regional. They did their best and we thank them for their work.
Finally, I must somewhat agree that referees need a much larger understanding of the rules. They do a lot already, but as in everything in FIRST, we need to continue to improve.
That’s fair, do you have any suggestions for improvements? Based on this thread, the refs there were quite experienced (in fact having done more official events than the OP).
Actually, I didn’t recognize them at all from Northern lights or any regional for that matter. I primarily took it they were volunteers with minimal understanding of the rules as far as refs went. My sincerest apologies if I am wrong.
However, again, I appreciate how they took time to ref our post season regional regardless if they were volunteers or full time refs. I’ve seen how hard their job is and I personally wouldn’t do it with out a broader understanding of the rules.
And that brings me to my suggestion. As far as improving it goes, I believe it would be a good idea to have referees take a quiz or comprehension test of some sort to establish they have a well rounded understanding of the rules. The test does not necessarily eliminate the refs from refereeing however it forces them to re-evaluate their understanding of the rules.
If a quiz or anything related is in existence, it should be made more difficult and I believe lessons or lectures should be given to iron out technicalities. These Lessons would be given by the game creating committee and shown not only to referees but also to teams to establish clarity and alleviate tensions that may arise on and off the field. The lessons must be available both in video and in text so that one perception of the rules can be clarified by the other. The game creating committee has the responsibility of coming up with entertaining, challenging and interesting games as well as the rules for them. It should also a responsibility I believe to iron out discrepancies for all involved.
Also, this is only an idea. I am aware there are videos explaining field elements but I think we also need ones ironing out technicalities in the rules. And I believe we should have the creators clarify and expand understanding of their amazing creations.