[The original post has been deleted]
1 Like
I think sharing what the illegal act was would help people understand.
3 Likes
Because the HR is “full of it”.
The other possibilities are that someone didn’t read the rule correctly (or at all), the offseason had a rule update that made the rule you think was violated not a rule.
Either way… I’m calling BS on the HR. I’m short on time, so I’ll explain later.
2 Likes
This has been discussed before. The rule book is the rule book. There is a slack channel specifically for head refs that is restricted. I am sure there are discussions on that on how to interpret certain rules. First also other ways to communicate how they want rules interpreted. Including phone call to First headquarters. Those communications are privileged so people can speak freely but results aren’t. And the rule book is still the rule book.
An example of such discussions would be: what counts as “momentary” possession of a note in last years game.
Note that offseason events are not run by FIRST and thus HQ has no involvement in them. While volunteers at such events often are those who have similar roles at in-season official events, that’s not always the case, and there’s no “higher authority” at an offseason (other than the organizing committee or team). YMMV.
3 Likes
The HR seemed to know what they were talking about.
Because if you’ve seen the refs rulebook, then you would know why it was legal?
Also, what is with her showing the secret stuff? That seems like a much bigger violation than telling a team why something was illegal.
Also, why delete the post?
Hey @SparklyCupcake, what’s with the edits? The details and narrative are changing constantly, and makes me doubt the veracity of the situation.
2 Likes
Going to pick up where I left off earlier.
First, a couple of misconceptions need to be cleared up.
- HRs don’t use Slack except for specific events. There is a communication channel, yes. It is not really a discussion channel, for reasons. (LRIs use Slack, as do the fields. HRs generally don’t.)
- HRs get the exact same rulebook as everyone else. The stuff that they can’t talk about is the private Q&A/clarification/be consistent stuff… most of which is based on how the rule is parsed in English.
Now, on to why I say the HR is full of it.
There is a limit on what can be discussed with the students, yes. See above. However, there are ways to inform the student of why the call was made the way it was without ever referencing that. Reading the rule and matching the circumstances of the incident, for example, a favorite option in my area. It could be as simple as someone wasn’t actually in the zone you thought they were; it could be a case of the refs all missing the action. So SOMEBODY is taking the lazy way out with “HQ says I can’t tell you why the call didn’t go your way”. That’s uncool.
If an HR isn’t answering the question, you can keep pressing lightly. Even stay in the box while another match runs. If it’s bad enough, informing event offficials or NMIR can help (though if you’re going to use NMIR, you need to be clear that it’s the lack of explanation, not the call, that you are complaining about).
About the binder: most HRs will have a tablet or binder with the rules as of the most recent update, punchlists, HR updates, and the HR Q&A. It’s not a secret HR rulebook, it’s the Manual plus some interpretation guidance (and often minus sections not needed on the field).
As the HR in question is one of your team’s mentors, you may need to explain “in private” that that sort of non-answer/“HQ says I can’t tell you” is the number one way to get complained about, and is not acceptable unless the written guidance can back that up. She doesn’t have to show you the guidance, mind you. But she may want to recheck the training, ALL OF IT, to see the sharing restrictions.
10 Likes
It seems like this info would be helpful for teams. Do you know the reasoning behind why it’s private?
I have gone over this before in other threads on this topic, but the basic reasoning is twofold.
- They (HQ and volunteers at the highest levels) will adjust the wording to the audience. As an example, write a school paper about the robot team for your English teacher. Now write it for your friends. Now write it for the CEO of your main sponsor. They aren’t the same, are they? Didn’t think so.
- The Game Manual, and the wording of said Game Manual, is the rule that needs to be called. That’s it. The clarifications are more along the lines of “remember that Rule X says Y” than anything new. If there’s something new, it’s in the Team Update, and maybe noted to HRs.
Yes, this can cause some issues when someone skims the rule instead of reading it. That’s why a favored call explanation strategy is to review the rule(s) and the situation with the student in the box. Can’t count the times I’ve seen someone realize they missed something important (either in the rule or on the field) when going through that process.
4 Likes
And many of the HR Q&A’s are from a ref, “Am I correct in thinking that rule G999 means that a robot can’t …” The chief refs and their cabinet discuss and respond. If correct, simply “Yes.” If incorrect, they may point out a word or two in the rule that tells why it’s incorrect.
1 Like