Rule T1 states that, “Head Referees have ultimate and final authority on all gameplay and Robot ruling decisions during the competition.”
I believe this rule is fundamentally flawed for two reasons: There are no limits on what the head referee can change, and there is no system of checks and balances.
I would like to share an example from a competition I attended during the High Stakes season. In this competition, the head referee ruled that blocking access to a mobile goal in the corner was considered possessing that mobile goal, even if you were not contacting the goal. This made it so that while guarding a mobile goal in the corner, a common strategy, you could not manipulate another goal at all due to SG6. This goes against the definition of Possession in the High Stakes manual.
The definition of Possession was as stated,
“Possession – A Robot / Scoring Object status. A Scoring Object is considered Possessed by a Robot if a Robot’s change in direction would result in controlled movement of the Scoring Object. This typically requires at least one of the following to be true:
• The Scoring Object is fully supported by the Robot.
• The Robot is moving the Scoring Object in a preferred direction with a concave face of the Robot (or inside of a concave angle formed by multiple mechanisms/faces of the Robot).
• The Robot is holding the Scoring Object against the Floor or a Field Element.”
By this definition, simply blocking access to the goal without contacting it should not have been considered possession. However, due to T1, the head referee had the final say and could change anything, even directly going against terms in the game manual. The red box of T1 in this game manual states that, “When an ambiguous rule results in a controversial call, there is a natural instinct to wonder what the “right” ruling “should have been,” or what the GDC “would have ruled.” This is ultimately an irrelevant question; our answer is that when a rule specifies “Head Referee’s discretion” (or similar), then the “right” call is the one made by a Head Referee in the moment.” It additionally states earlier that, “Many rules have “black-and-white” criteria that can be easily checked. However, some rulings will rely on a judgment call from this human Head Referee.” The first quote seems to contradict the second. In the possession example, the corner guarding is a “black-and-white” ruling, either possessing a goal or not. However, since the head referee can seemingly change anything, the second quote is irrelevant to the first, as any ruling can be made a “judgment call”.
Proposed Solution: State in the game manual what rules or terms are considered “black-and-white” and must be followed by the head referee. This would place a limit on what they can change and leave proper judgment calls the way they are.
The second reason that this rule is flawed is that in these situations, there is no system of checks and balances to prevent them. The head referee has final say on any ruling during a match, and T1d states that, “Event Partners may not overrule a Head Referee’s gameplay or Robot decisions.” This means that the only person who could potentially hold the head referee accountable is the head referee. This allows the head referee to completely “take over” a competition with a ruling that goes against the game manual, and no one can do anything about it, because they have the final say with no one to “check” them.
Proposed Solution: Have a system of odd-numbered referees with the same amount of “power” that can vote against each other in the case of a controversial call, or allow an outside force, such as the Event Partner, to override these decisions. I understand that these solutions are not very fleshed out and could have potential drawbacks, but something has to change.
In these situations, competitors can feel discouraged and powerless when they know the head referee is going against the documents that they have been taught to swear by, but nothing can be done and they have to adapt at a moment’s notice in a competition. This is why I believe the rule T1 must be changed in some sort of way.
This football fan would be pretty excited…