IRI Ball denial and G31

[jspatz1]

Originally Posted by Jared341

An alliance can maintain control of all 18 balls. What is to stop you from putting additional balls on your alliance bridge?

An excellent point, if you have the capability. I don't think we could have placed on the bridge, but it is a safe spot if you can do it. We considered storing balls in our lane guarded by an alliance partner, which would also be likely to draw penalties.

[Kims Robot]

Originally Posted by jspatz1

An excellent point, if you have the capability. I don't think we could have placed on the bridge, but it is a safe spot if you can do it. We considered storing balls in our lane guarded by an alliance partner, which would also be likely to draw penalties.

If you can't place on the bridge, just shove them under your bridge, that will get rid of them for everyone!
JK...

Originally Posted by Gdeaver

Maybe allot of people are hoping I'll shut up and this issue will evaporate and they can go on with their very effective strategy.

I can see that this is a sore spot... but unless you have specifically seen IRI teams doing this strategy (and honestly, even if there are one or two, the chances of them pairing up with other teams willing to employ this strategy are so small...), I really wouldn't worry.

Originally Posted by Brandon Holley

I think knowingly violating rules to gain an advantage is something we have all been taught (through FIRST and through life) to be unethical.

Originally Posted by Bjenks548

Breaking a rule on purpose is not always a bad thing, however breaking a rule with the intent of not getting caught is.

I 100% agree with Brando & Brendan here... heck 150%... there is a ton of talk of "IRI caliber teams", and not one of them I know would knowingly break any of these rules (granted I don't know all of them!) with the intent of not getting caught.

Now, that said, remember that A LOT of teams are going to have new drive teams at their offseasons. Some will have seasoned veterans, many (if not all), will try and train the heck out of any newbies... but there is the possibility that a rule is broken accidentally. I took photos at several competitions & offseasons this year, and I saw plenty of foot faults, the occasional panic stricken inbounder watch the balls shower in from the powerful opponents, saw kids freeze and not know what to do when their strategies fell apart or there were too many balls, I saw inbounders throw at 31.5 seconds... plenty of which went uncalled. But 95% of the time I could see the intent (fear??) in their eyes, and I cannot say once I saw them "do it on purpose". Is there the possibility that teams did employ this strategy on purpose? Sure. Did they do it knowing they "wouldn't get caught"? Well... only they know. Unless you specifically spoke with them about their intent, how can you/we know? Did you see the grins on their faces that said "ha we are getting away with this?" Or maybe that was just a grin of "oh my gosh we may actually win this".

Intent is a terrible thing to judge from afar... or sometimes even up close. I ref FTC and FLL regularly and I HATE the FTC rules that talk about "intent". How do I know?? I think FIRST has done a good job trying to remove the concept of intent out of FRC, but its still a bit of a guessing game if you want the matches to play out fairly.

Yes, and easy solution is to just add 2 referees... and it sounds like FIRST's Words indicated that "they expected teams to police themselves", but I can also toss in the Regional Committee's perspective... adding two more qualified volunteers can be difficult. I've seen plenty of events struggle to get enough volunteers, and with FIRST starting to push towards districts, the crunch for volunteers (and especially the qualified ones) is going to get difficult. My guess is that they are trying to "groom" us for being able to run these events with fewer key volunteers so that they have a chance at being able to staff all of these events. You can argue that IRI is not likely to have a shortage of volunteers, but I would come back and say if we cannot make this work at IRI, then how on earth do we make it work at real competitions?

My suggestion? If you see this happen at IRI, go talk to the team... ask them if they knew they were in violation... then if they either keep doing it or you don't believe them, take it up with the staff. I employ a guideline to all of the FTC coaches when I head ref a tournament. I told them they had the entire eliminations to bring questions or issues to me, after that, I don't want to hear it (unless it has to do with a particular match). I suggested that they first go and talk with the team in violation, and then if the team didn't listen, bring it to me, and I would deal with it. This all came about when in the FVC/FTC transition year a team had a Vex part on their robot, and didnt realize the Vex part (metal) was illegal. They made it all the way to the finals and after they won, teams started complaining to me. It was an honest mistake on the part of the team, and an oversite by my inspectors. The moral? If you see it... don't sit and stew about it... don't complain on CD... DO something about it yourself. For these times you saw teams violate this rule, did you go talk to them? (and perhaps you did, but I have a hard time picturing a single IRI team coming back and saying "yeah, we knew we wouldn't get caught, so of course we did it!"

Note: this is NOT meant to be argumentative, just suggesting a better way to deal with it than forcing an offseason to change their staffing.

[Lil' Lavery]

While a team may not have the intent to break one of these rules, an individual might.

[jspatz1]

Originally Posted by Kims Robot

If you can't place on the bridge, just shove them under your bridge, that will get rid of them for everyone! .[/i]

Hey, good idea. We could get them later with our reach-under-the-bridge thingy.

[Carolyn_Grace]

Originally Posted by jspatz1

Hey, good idea. We could get them later with our reach-under-the-bridge thingy.

But that might disrupt the Roomba that naps there.