PDA

View Full Version : POLL ONLY. SVR F-3


Pavan Dave
03-15-2008, 09:16 PM
Do you think it was necessary to go into a 4th round during the finals of SVR?

Jimmy Cao
03-15-2008, 09:20 PM
Sorry for replying, but are there any videos of this so that the rest of us (who were not there) can see?

Thanks.

Pavan Dave
03-15-2008, 09:43 PM
Currently I do not have footage or know where to get it. If anybody has a copy and could send it to me, I could upload it and post it.

Tristan Lall
03-15-2008, 10:01 PM
Sorry for replying, but are there any videos of this so that the rest of us (who were not there) can see?I'm sort of hoping the Blue Alliance guys will be on top of this one ASAP. Otherwise, the webcasts are often archived and viewable through the NASA Robotics Education Project page. (I also missed the matches, and only tuned in in time to catch the aftermath....)

Do you think it was necessary to go into a 4th round during the finals of SVR?I know, it's supposed to be a poll only.* But I figure it's worth posting <T16>, just so that we can bring the rules back into the discussion (rather than just the visceral response to a bad call):If, in the judgment of the Head Referee, a “field fault” occurs that affects either the play or the outcome of the match, the match will be replayed. Example field faults include broken field elements, power failure to a portion of the field, improper activation of the field control system, errors by field personnel, etc.
I can definitely see a bad call by the referees being construed as an error by field personnel affecting the outcome of the match. <T16> mandates a replayed match in that case, rather than a reversal of the call (which might have been the more just thing to do).

So be careful what you vote for: voting no is, in a way, a vote to allow the officials to bend the rules when convenient. (And that's not necessarily a bad thing, particularly in cases when the rules are flawed.)

*I hate it when people do that...no offence, Pavan!

EricVicenti
03-15-2008, 10:10 PM
First of all, I am very thankful for this poll. It is comforting to know I don't have an unreasonable bias on this matter.

I will not go into detail here, but in my opinion, 'errors by field personnel' does not include the judges making an initial poor call, because it does not absolutely require the match to be replayed. In other words, there were no conditions that could have altered the results of the match, which seems to be the intent of the rule.

TKM.368
03-15-2008, 10:19 PM
Both sides are right:

Refs have a tough job --vs-- Refs were supposed to be trained.

Humans make mistakes unfortunately. I think people got caught up in the heat of the moment.

I can recall in many matches over many years "there was a change in the score from the last match" and can only imagine if all of those resulted in rematches. Yikes!

bduddy
03-15-2008, 10:59 PM
I voted No, but I'd actually like to change my mind. Yes, we all know that the call was against the rules. However, the refs had called it that way all day. If they suddenly changed their mind then, to literally decide the championship, 100 (and their partners) would have a legitimate argument that, based on what the refs had been saying, they thought they had done enough in the match. Of course, they should have read the rules and someone should have informed the refs earlier, but "stuff happens" and no one can memorize every possible application of the rulebook. Should this have resulted in a replay? Well, preferably the rules would have been known to all, including the refs, in the first place. But although the rules are black and white, the field is in shades of gray, and it's better, in my opinion, that the match be decided on the field than a side losing as the direct result of a referee's decision.

math4origami
03-15-2008, 11:17 PM
While watching matches, I did notice the ref's called the rule their way. However, those matches would not have been decided by the 12 points. The other team won by more than 12 in those cases.

I do not think that the judges would appreciate a random student from a random team coming in from the crowd, who did NOT participate the match, and go up to them to say, "Oh, by the way, you guys called the wrong call that last match."

If someone went up to them every single time we saw something wrong with the rules, that wouldn't reflect too well in their eyes, would it? They would see our team as some people who would argue over rules over and over again, even if we weren't even in the match.

The process perpetuates itself, and then when it DOES fall to us, then we can't do anything about it because they say that they've been doing it the whole day. Would they have liked another random team to be correcting their referee'ing all day long? I'm sure that after a while, they would stop listening to us "cry wolf".

Shankar M
03-15-2008, 11:34 PM
Please bear in mind that I can only make a judgment based upon what I have read in this thread and the Silicon Valley Regional thread.

However, the refs had called it that way all day. If they suddenly changed their mind then, to literally decide the championship, 100 (and their partners) would have a legitimate argument that, based on what the refs had been saying, they thought they had done enough in the match.

As much as we all ask for consistency, I am sure we do not ask for something to be done consistently wrongly; that certainly does not make it right. I certainly understand the argument that referees are human, that referees will in fact invariably make errors, but every time there is a mistake, we cannot simply cite it as an inevitable human error. There has to be some accountability, hasn't there? Isn't that the only way things can improve? By admitting that a mistake was made? I think there could have been no greater demonstration of accountability than admitting that a mistake had been made, and rightly awarding the third match to the blue alliance. Replaying the match seems to come across to me as side-stepping any sense of accountability whatsoever.

As for knowing the entire rulebook, isn't this something that teams do anyway? I would think it is impossible to spend six weeks building a robot without knowing every rule in the rulebook. How else would know what you can and cannot do? Why should this be any different for the referees?

Referees are indeed volunteers and I am truly grateful to every one of them for giving up their valuable time to help to ensure that competitions run smoothly. Thank you so very much. However, referees are also volunteers who choose their roles. They are roles that come with the burden of responsibility, a responsibility that can decide winners.

The referee certification course this year was definitely a step in the right direction by FIRST. It shows that we as a community want to make a change, that we want to put things right. However, situations like these also need to be handled in the right manner to make that change. When an error is made, accountability is a must.

Again, all that I can say is based upon what I have read, take it for what you will.

AdamHeard
03-15-2008, 11:35 PM
While watching matches, I did notice the ref's called the rule their way. However, those matches would not have been decided by the 12 points. The other team won by more than 12 in those cases.

I do not think that the judges would appreciate a random student from a random team coming in from the crowd, who did NOT participate the match, and go up to them to say, "Oh, by the way, you guys called the wrong call that last match."

If someone went up to them every single time we saw something wrong with the rules, that wouldn't reflect too well in their eyes, would it? They would see our team as some people who would argue over rules over and over again, even if we weren't even in the match.

The process perpetuates itself, and then when it DOES fall to us, then we can't do anything about it because they say that they've been doing it the whole day. Would they have liked another random team to be correcting their referee'ing all day long? I'm sure that after a while, they would stop listening to us "cry wolf".

I have to say, I was disappointed by the refs during the elims. Not only with the supported trackball shenanigans, but the fact that many, many illegal "defensive" plays were not properly penalized; team 8 throughout the entire elims or example.

We pay quite a bit to play the game, why can't we play the game in the rulebook?

Cory
03-15-2008, 11:41 PM
Team 100 and Team 254 pointed out the incorrect scoring of supported trackballs to the referees earlier in the elimination rounds.

I don't have anything good to say about the refereeing at this event. I'll leave it at that.

waialua359
03-16-2008, 12:07 AM
Trophys should be given to all 6 teams as regional winners. Its none of the teams faults for referees that dont know the entire playbook. You never do a playover. It opens up further a can of worms after its over.

Many inconsistencies happened at Chesapeake this past weekend which cost teams the chance to advance simply because they created their own "interpretations" of the playbook. Just too many inconsistencies in scoring and penalty calling which evolved during the competition. From what I heard from people that saw the finals matches, I am not surprised it happened at SVR also.
I am not here to bash volunteers that work hard at events. I just feel that its the responsibilities of the volunteers, especially the head ref to have their team understand the playbook. This isnt some program that cost a few dollars to participate to create a robot overnight.
Blood, sweat, tears, and sacrifice takes place just to get to the point of participating.
I feel bad for all 6 teams being put in a bad situation.

Nawaid Ladak
03-16-2008, 12:45 AM
i think this is a bigger issue THIS YEAR because of what FIRST said during the kickoff event. stating all refs would go through a online course and be consistent from regional to regional. now we got VCU, SVR, and in my opinion everything but G22's at UCF...not to mention the counting of unhurdled trackballs, and then correcting their mistake and making us wonder...

SmartAlek
03-16-2008, 12:59 AM
i think this is a bigger isue THIS YEAR because of what FIRST said during the kickoff event

What did they say during kickoff?

=Martin=Taylor=
03-16-2008, 12:59 AM
Let me start by saying that this game is stupid. It’s entirely determined by penalties.


Now consider this. The refs misinterpreted the track-ball removal rules THROUGHOUT SVR. We lost points to this misunderstanding. Other teams lost points to this misunderstanding....

What I'm trying to say is that they did not simply call a random penalty in the finals. They called the same penalty ALL DAY.

So what if they had figured it out? What if they didn't give blue alliance the penalty? Wouldn't all the other teams that lost points to this misunderstanding have gotten angry?

What a strange day....

We were actually packing up our robot when we were called back to the field.

math4origami
03-16-2008, 01:29 AM
I think it was the referee training they mentioned?

lemon1324
03-16-2008, 01:31 AM
No replay.

I was in the very front row for this match. My two cents says it was a bad call. <G14> specifically says a trackball "supported at least partially by the OVERPASS and not in contact with any ROBOT of the same ALLIANCE" gets the 12 points. Thus the blue trackball scored, and thus wins the match, regardless of the <G42> call called on them (I believe this was also diputed). This happened during one of our qualification matches (Team #2473) and we got points for the ball.

That said, decisions by personnel, good or bad, are a part of any sport, and ahould be taken as such. The vounteer crew did they best job they could, and tried their best to give everyone a fair show. My hat's off to them.

MarkJ
03-16-2008, 02:06 AM
I voted unddecided based on things I mentioned in another post. From what I saw, the 3rd match never should have been an issue because the red alliance should have won the 2nd match. I thought red won matches 1 and 2, and thought blue should have won 3. Very strange. I think the wrong alliance won matches 2 and 3, but that the right alliance won in the end. But based on everything that happened, and that the 6 teams couldn't control any of it - seems FIRST should do what they do in the olympics sometimes - why not give all 6 teams a "gold"? I'm sure all 6 feel they won the event, and I can't blame any of them.

Tetraman
03-16-2008, 07:50 AM
The replay was the fairest action the refs could have taken.

This may be the most unfortunate situation of FIRST this year, but that doesn't mean we treat this as the most disgusting thing to happen in a competition. Is it the refs fault? Maybe. But don't give them crap because they don't deserve it. All we can ask for is the situation be remembered as another FIRST lerning experiance and not something against FIRST or it's volunteers.

TKM.368
03-16-2008, 08:32 AM
Paid refs - perhaps that's what we need. People whose job is just to study the rules and prepare for these events.

One thing puzzles me about a rematch - what if the exact same thing happened in the rematch? People say it was scored incorrectly throughout SVR so they couldn't change for the contested match. If the same thing happened in the rematch, what would have been done then? Do you continue to be consistent or change to be right?

Again, tough job and I don't envy the refs or the RD. Nobody will ever be fully satisfied one way or another.

Swan217
03-16-2008, 09:12 AM
To all:

A counterarguement. This is what happens (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_URO6cwLbM&NR=1) even when the referees are paid, there's instant replay, and the game rules don't change year to year. This was the final goal in the final game of the Stanley Cup Finals.

And as another question - what would you have wanted them to do? Pick up all of the confetti and tell the Stanley Cup Champs that they don't deserve the Stanley Cup because the ref made a mistake? As far as I know, it takes 4 games to win the Stanley Cup, and it takes 2 wins to win a Robotics Competition. So if you couldn't win the first two games, and you couldn't win the 3rd game by large enough of a margin to overcome a bad call, how much do you really have the arguement that you were cheated?

Lavapicker
03-16-2008, 11:28 AM
As the lead team for the blue alliance we'd like to thank our two alliance partners team 8 and 192. I don't think you've ever seen a more spirited alliance at any regional. I have to keep telling myself how this is just a game and that our kids are the real winners having gone through the process.
In regards to the game however, the match 3 error was a scoring error that had no impact on the game itself, only on the final score. When we were told we lost we did what we were supposed to do and showed the head ref the rule book. He said he agreed with us that they scored it wrong. It wasn't a tie so I still don't know why we had to replay the game. We either won or lost...because of the tally error we won. Why they couldn't just reannounce they had made an error in the scoring and change who won I'd like someone to explain? Again, the error had nothing to do with the match, only the final score tally. In any case we had a great time in SVR and were very proud of our team and alliance partners! No regrets or hard feelings, after all it is a game....On to Honolulu....

EricVicenti
03-16-2008, 01:49 PM
I would first like to agree that there is nowhere to point the finger. The opposite alliance did nothing to cause this mess, except by playing the best game they could. The referees obviously did the best they could, provided the heat of the moment, and their best understanding of the rules.

I would like to address the argument of the fourth match, however. I was previously unaware the referees have been making that poor call for all of the qualifying rounds. It is the referees job to do the best job they can at calling penalties and tallying points. If a poor call has been made, it is THE TEAM's responsibility to bring it to the judges. I feel it was the judges lack of acknowledging this responsibility that made them feel obligated to seek another match. If they had been making this poor call all day, it was the affected team's responsibility to bring it to the attention of the refs and it was the refs responsibility to change it then. The same applies to the finals.

I believe if teams had brought this fault in point tallying to the attention of the referees on Friday or Saturday morning, they would have corrected their incorrect method of scoring (not counting the trackball while supported by the opposite alliance) earlier on in the competition, and this entire situation would be avoided.

Danny McC
03-16-2008, 01:56 PM
At first I was quite angry about what the Refs decesion was. I really thought that they should have just gave blue the win. But if they did that wouldn't the people who wanted the red to win just say "oh well they just know that if they did it again red would win." From seeing that the blue won the second match we all know that they had a chance to win the regional. I think now that was the refs did was the most fair and right thing they could have done in that situation. And Congrulations to 2024 on your award you get to go to Atlanta now. Hoping to see you guys around there, the drive team seemed mad cool.

Brandon Holley
03-16-2008, 02:13 PM
After watching all 4 matches I must say that match 4 SHOULD have taken place. The referees were not doing a very good job even in match 2, where they missed 2 pretty obvious calls. If we wanna look back at that, then the red alliance would have won in the 2nd match, and a 3rd and even more controversial match wouldnt have occurred.

Congratulations again to the red alliance for winning the regional. To the blue alliance teams, a very hard fought battle indeed, unfortunately poor officiating seems to be an unwanted theme developing in FIRST.

jgannon
03-16-2008, 04:58 PM
Every MC says during opening ceremonies on Friday, "there will be no replays." I suspect that the reason this is part of the script is because it is an important tenet of how the game is intended to be played.

Guy Davidson
03-16-2008, 05:12 PM
Joey, really? Is it on any official FIRST document that is given to the MCs?

jgannon
03-16-2008, 05:21 PM
Joey, really? Is it on any official FIRST document that is given to the MCs?
I have been told that it is part of the script that the MCs are given. I have heard this phrase spoken immediately after the referees are introduced at Midwest, Finger Lakes, and Pittsburgh this year.

Guy Davidson
03-16-2008, 05:25 PM
I have been told that it is part of the script that the MCs are given. I have heard this phrase spoken immediately after the referees are introduced at Midwest, Finger Lakes, and Pittsburgh this year.

Thanks. That's good to know.

Bill Gold
03-16-2008, 05:29 PM
I have been told that it is part of the script that the MCs are given. I have heard this phrase spoken immediately after the referees are introduced at Midwest, Finger Lakes, and Pittsburgh this year.
I've heard it, myself, over my years in FIRST, but there is also precedent for replays in both past seasons as well as the rules. Basically, I think that when the MCs say this it's meaning that there won't be "do overs" for things that aren't explicitly outlined in the rules of each competition (field malfunction, referee having a stroke, etc). Meaning that a team not being ready for a match because they haven't had enough time to strategize or because a driver had to go to the bathroom or hasn't gotten back from Wendy's doesn't count as a "do overable" event.

Cory
03-16-2008, 07:12 PM
I believe if teams had brought this fault in point tallying to the attention of the referees on Friday or Saturday morning, they would have corrected their incorrect method of scoring (not counting the trackball while supported by the opposite alliance) earlier on in the competition, and this entire situation would be avoided.

As I posted earlier, and as noted in the other thread about SVR, teams DID notify the refs of this error. I know for a fact that 100 and 254 did during the elimination rounds prior to the finals, and other teams did also. The referees should have been well aware of this issue before it came up.

P.S. I think people are forgetting that Red was actually announced the winner of the event, and then the referees went back and decided to change their minds. It wasn't like they deliberated prior to announcing the score and then changed their minds. This seems like a major departure from standard operating procedure. If there was any question that the match was not being scored correctly, it absolutely needed to be rectified prior to announcing a score. Nobody wants to win by a referee error, but how would it feel to be awarded the win, and then have it taken away?

The refereeing was highly inconsistent all weekend. This was not a problem that originated in the final matches.

Guy Davidson
03-16-2008, 07:15 PM
P.S. I think people are forgetting that Red was actually announced the winner of the event, and then the referees went back and decided to change their minds. It wasn't like they deliberated prior to announcing the score and then changed their minds. This seems like a major departure from standard operating procedure. If there was any question that the match was not being scored correctly, it absolutely needed to be rectified prior to announcing a score.

But how are we to know how the match is being scored until it is announced? We saw the referees deliberating, and expected them to make the right call. Once we found out they made the wrong call, we brought up the rules, and argued that their ruling was incorrect. I don't think we could have reasonably approached the referees any earlier.

Doug G
03-16-2008, 07:17 PM
Sorry for replying, but are there any videos of this so that the rest of us (who were not there) can see?

Thanks.

P.S. I think people are forgetting that Red was actually announced the winner of the event, and then the referees went back and decided to change their minds. It wasn't like they deliberated prior to announcing the score and then changed their minds. This seems like a major departure from standard operating procedure. If there was any question that the match was not being scored correctly, it absolutely needed to be rectified prior to announcing a score. Nobody wants to win by a referee error, but how would it feel to be awarded the win, and then have it taken away?

As I posted in the other thread...

Here's a link to Finals Match 3 with both matches and commentary by refs as it was shown on the webcast...

http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jomanc/svr/SVR2008FM3.wmv Thanks for the mirror, Joman!!

CraigHickman
03-16-2008, 07:39 PM
That said, decisions by personnel, good or bad, are a part of any sport, and ahould be taken as such. The vounteer crew did they best job they could, and tried their best to give everyone a fair show. My hat's off to them.

...They did their best job, and still failed, and still screwed over both alliances.

The replay was the fairest action the refs could have taken.

This may be the most unfortunate situation of FIRST this year, but that doesn't mean we treat this as the most disgusting thing to happen in a competition. Is it the refs fault? Maybe. But don't give them crap because they don't deserve it. All we can ask for is the situation be remembered as another FIRST lerning experiance and not something against FIRST or it's volunteers.

...So wait, we're not supposed to "give them crap?" How about politely pointing out the blunt and absolute failure of the refs over the entire event? It's not "giving them crap," it's stating plain and observable fact.

No replay. In fact, no match 3. It should have ended after match 2.

morpheous115
03-16-2008, 08:12 PM
...They did their best job, and still failed, and still screwed over both alliances.



...So wait, we're not supposed to "give them crap?" How about politely pointing out the blunt and absolute failure of the refs over the entire event? It's not "giving them crap," it's stating plain and observable fact.

No replay. In fact, no match 3. It should have ended after match 2.

Agreed. We all understand that they are volunteers, but that doesn't grant them immunity from criticism for doing a halfassed job on a competition that many teams have invested over 5-10,000 dollars on each!

-morpheous




.

dtengineering
03-16-2008, 09:52 PM
Referees and umpires are a key element of sports, and have probably the toughest job in all of sport. If they do their job well, they are hardly ever noticed, but if they are anything less than perfect their errors can have a massive effect on the outcome of a game and be remembered forever. Consider, for instance, The Hand of God (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_of_God_goal) goal.

Therefore it behooves a team that wishes to be a champion to provide a sufficient margin of victory such that the officials' decisions -- whether correct or not -- are not the deciding factor. Although unfortunate, human error, by players and referees is an element of sport, and when one commits to playing the game one does so knowing that there is the possibility of a call being missed, or an incorrect call being made.

If one does not like this fact, one should not engage in competitive sport.

This is not to say that bad calls should not be noticed, or cannot be commented upon, merely that they are to be expected, no matter how much effort goes into trying to minimize the number that occur.

In sort, congratulations to the champions, who dealt with the refereeing and overcame the challenges it presented... even though it was not their choice to win this way, they managed to win... and condolences to the finalists who didn't want to lose this way.

Most of all, however, condolences to the refs and tournament organizers who did their best to provide a fair and fun competition, and probably feel much worse about this situation than even the teams involved do. It's not like they were trying to screw up... they just did. It happens.

So my vote is YES, there should have been a match if that is what the refs and tournament organizers felt was fair. Not the call I would have made, perhaps, but I wasn't there. It is up to the teams to suck it up and deal with the officiating, so long as it is not intentionally biased. As for the multiple gold medals idea in the olympics, I believe that has only happened in events where the judging has been shown to be intentionally biased.

Jason

jgannon
03-16-2008, 10:07 PM
Basically, I think that when the MCs say this it's meaning that there won't be "do overs" for things that aren't explicitly outlined in the rules of each competition (field malfunction, referee having a stroke, etc).
Right... I've always assumed that the MCs are really talking about any situations where "do overs" are not explicitly allowed by <T16>. That's why I'm surprised about all this.

Bill Gold
03-16-2008, 10:57 PM
Right... I've always assumed that the MCs are really talking about any situations where "do overs" are not explicitly allowed by <T16>. That's why I'm surprised about all this.
Let me preface this with the fact that I don't have a personal opinion on this issue.

There was a fairly reasonable argument made at some point in the SVR thread that a field personnel malfunction which is apparently part of T16 or another rule that talks about "do over" matches (admittedly, it has been 2 years since I've been involved in FIRST to the extent that I've memorized the rules) could also be extended to cover referee brain-farts.

Guy Davidson
03-16-2008, 10:58 PM
As I posted earlier, and as noted in the other thread about SVR, teams DID notify the refs of this error. I know for a fact that 100 and 254 did during the elimination rounds prior to the finals, and other teams did also. The referees should have been well aware of this issue before it came up.
...
The refereeing was highly inconsistent all weekend. This was not a problem that originated in the final matches.

I agree with your final sentence, and your first paragraph there just exclaims it. I trust you when you say that you notified them of their error. Why does it take us notifying them after the final round in order to get them to listen? If that is the case, shouldn't that ball have been scored for blue?

This mess is extremely frustrating and painful to us, and I'm sure you would feel the same if they reverted the call. I hope to hear something official from FIRST about what took place.

Cory
03-16-2008, 11:38 PM
I agree with your final sentence, and your first paragraph there just exclaims it. I trust you when you say that you notified them of their error. Why does it take us notifying them after the final round in order to get them to listen? If that is the case, shouldn't that ball have been scored for blue?

This mess is extremely frustrating and painful to us, and I'm sure you would feel the same if they reverted the call. I hope to hear something official from FIRST about what took place.

Yes, that ball should have been scored for blue.

However, I think it's a moot point, as I believe there is a very reasonable argument for the case that there never even should have been a match 3.

Guy Davidson
03-16-2008, 11:43 PM
Yes, that ball should have been scored for blue.

However, I think it's a moot point, as I believe there is a very reasonable argument for the case that there never even should have been a match 3.

Maybe you're right. I haven't watched the match videos, and truth be told, I remember very little of what happened before match 3. I got very much caught up in the excitement.

Regardless, there was a mistake by the referees somewhere, probably in many places in the process. I truly hope FIRST and everyone involved learns something significant from these events, so that by the time we get to Atlanta, and it's time to crown the World Champions, there is no doubt about what should or could have happened because of the refereeing, only because of the teams as they played on the field.