OCCRA
Go to Post My wife thought the lead singer, Ozzy Kamen was cute. Darn those rockers. - Andy Baker [more]
Home
Go Back   Chief Delphi > FIRST > Moderated Discussion
CD-Events   CD-Media   CD-Spy   FRC-Spy  
portal register members calendar search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read FAQ rules

 
Reply
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
  #31   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-19-2004, 01:58 PM
KenWittlief KenWittlief is offline
.
no team
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 4,213
KenWittlief has a reputation beyond reputeKenWittlief has a reputation beyond reputeKenWittlief has a reputation beyond reputeKenWittlief has a reputation beyond reputeKenWittlief has a reputation beyond reputeKenWittlief has a reputation beyond reputeKenWittlief has a reputation beyond reputeKenWittlief has a reputation beyond reputeKenWittlief has a reputation beyond reputeKenWittlief has a reputation beyond reputeKenWittlief has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo

Quote:
I propose that FIRST puts together a video to be shown to all that shows examples of violations of the "standard rules." Actual competition footage could be used. Teams would get a better idea of what they shouldn't do, and referees would have actual examples to use to help determine what intent looks like.
good point, and it addresses one of my questions about the game this year

can anyone site ANY team at ANY regional that was DQ for damaging other bots or tipping?

was the penalty called at all? anywhere?

as far as I know there is no penalty for this except the bot being DQ'd - was it called anywhere?
Reply With Quote
  #32   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-19-2004, 02:04 PM
OneAngryDaisy OneAngryDaisy is offline
not on CD enough...
no team
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 785
OneAngryDaisy is a glorious beacon of lightOneAngryDaisy is a glorious beacon of lightOneAngryDaisy is a glorious beacon of lightOneAngryDaisy is a glorious beacon of lightOneAngryDaisy is a glorious beacon of lightOneAngryDaisy is a glorious beacon of light
Re: 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo

For the record, I was watching those matches. When 469 got stuck in 93, two of the referees behind 469 sprinted to their booth. What they said, I don't know. All i know is they appeared to be talking to 469 about something regarding the entanglement. I just remember being suprised seeing a referee run in someone's booth, I never saw that in my 4 years of robotics....

about their aggresive behaivor: it was simply brilliant. They would fill a goal, sometimes both goals, and then cap. With twenty seconds left their offensive job was often done, and a opponent was getting ready to hang. Almost every time 469 succeeded in preventing them from hanging.. This is one amazing bot and I really didn't see them trying to get entangled.
Reply With Quote
  #33   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-19-2004, 02:26 PM
Andy Baker's Avatar Woodie Flowers Award
Andy Baker Andy Baker is offline
President, AndyMark, Inc.
FRC #3940 (CyberTooth)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Kokomo, Indiana
Posts: 3,364
Andy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Andy Baker
Re: 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo

Quote:
Originally Posted by KenWittlief
can anyone site ANY team at ANY regional that was DQ for damaging other bots or tipping?

was the penalty called at all? anywhere?
It wasn't tipping or damage, but we called a DQ against team 360 in Portland, for an unfortuneate entanglement. It was not intentional, but it was definitely damaging to their opponent. 360 was the #1 seed at the time, btw.

Also, with the leadership of Eric Stokely and Paul Roush, I NEVER heard any complaining from team 360 about this. They actually felt guilty that their robot could entangle another one, even if they did not mean to. 360 is a class act.

Andy B.
Reply With Quote
  #34   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-19-2004, 02:43 PM
ellenchisa
 
Posts: n/a
Re: 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo

[quote=OneAngryDaisy]For the record, I was watching those matches. When 469 got stuck in 93, two of the referees behind 469 sprinted to their booth. What they said, I don't know. All i know is they appeared to be talking to 469 about something regarding the entanglement. I just remember being suprised seeing a referee run in someone's booth, I never saw that in my 4 years of robotics....
QUOTE]

They told our coach he needed to stop doing that, but when he explained they were genuinely trying to get out of the netting, they left and understood. Forgot to mention that earlier, sorry.
Reply With Quote
  #35   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-19-2004, 02:45 PM
Zzyzx's Avatar
Zzyzx Zzyzx is offline
It wasn't me, I swear!
AKA: Austin LeSure
#0492 (Titan Robotics Club)
Team Role: Scout
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Bellevue, Washington
Posts: 302
Zzyzx will become famous soon enoughZzyzx will become famous soon enough
Send a message via AIM to Zzyzx
Re: 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo

I made myself a promise that I wouldn't post on this thread, but it seems I must break that promise.

At the time of the match in question, I was fairly close to the action when the event in question occurred. As you have seen by my team number, I am closely affiliated with RyanMcE, and I do admit that at the time I felt angry and upset that entanglement was not called.

After reviewing the footage of the match several times, I must agree with most people that it was not an intentional entanglement, and I do agree that it is difficult to control robots from the opposite side of the field and that netting is always in danger of being entangled with. However, it seemed that there was quite a bit of overly-aggressive behavior practiced by several teams this year, and that many aggressive moves were not called for any penalty.

If I looked at it from a same-team standpoint, it would have been an obvious entanglement. If I looked at it from an opposite-team standpoint, it would have been an obvious, and difficult to see, accident. If I looked at it from a judge’s standpoint, it would have been a difficult call to make, and as I stated before, since other overly-aggressive tactics were not called, that may have played a part in the decision not to penalize team 469 for entanglement.

If there are any hard feelings between my team and any other member of any other team, I wish that we may put any difficult feeling behind us and move on. Besides, FIRST is only the beginning.
__________________
Team Motto: "Building the Foundations of Tomorrow with the Minds of Young People"
Reply With Quote
  #36   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-19-2004, 02:52 PM
Adam Y.'s Avatar
Adam Y. Adam Y. is offline
Adam Y.
no team (?????)
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Long Island
Posts: 1,979
Adam Y. is a splendid one to beholdAdam Y. is a splendid one to beholdAdam Y. is a splendid one to beholdAdam Y. is a splendid one to beholdAdam Y. is a splendid one to beholdAdam Y. is a splendid one to beholdAdam Y. is a splendid one to behold
Send a message via AIM to Adam Y.
Re: 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo

Quote:
f I looked at it from a same-team standpoint, it would have been an obvious entanglement. If I looked at it from an opposite-team standpoint, it would have been an obvious, and difficult to see, accident. If I looked at it from a judge’s standpoint, it would have been a difficult call to make, and as I stated before, since other overly-aggressive tactics were not called, that may have played a part in the decision not to penalize team 469 for entanglement.
The same thing happened to our team too. We really did not care though because it was a great game and it was an accident Personally I think that the team that build the robot actually could have used a material that would have prevented entanglement. We used this lovely vinyl that Team 870 gave us. It's amazingly flexible and very durable even after it was pulled by a robot.
__________________
If either a public officer or any one else saw a person attempting to cross a bridge which had been ascertained to be unsafe, and there were no time to warn him of his danger, they might seize him and turn him back without any real infringement of his liberty; for liberty consists in doing what one desires, and he does not desire to fall into the river. -Mill
Reply With Quote
  #37   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-19-2004, 02:53 PM
Tyler Olds Tyler Olds is offline
FIRST Lifer
FRC #2826 (Wave Robotics)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Oshkosh, WI
Posts: 829
Tyler Olds has a reputation beyond reputeTyler Olds has a reputation beyond reputeTyler Olds has a reputation beyond reputeTyler Olds has a reputation beyond reputeTyler Olds has a reputation beyond reputeTyler Olds has a reputation beyond reputeTyler Olds has a reputation beyond reputeTyler Olds has a reputation beyond reputeTyler Olds has a reputation beyond reputeTyler Olds has a reputation beyond reputeTyler Olds has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Tyler Olds Send a message via Yahoo to Tyler Olds
Re: 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo

Wow, where do I begin??

First off, I would like to congratulate 1218, 469, and 868 for winning a hard brutal match against us. After the 20 minutes it took for me to cool down, I have realized that this is still all a game, and that the true meaning of FIRST is not to win, but to be inspired in the fields on science and technology. After four years of being in first and on team 93 I have truly been inspired by changing my career field from a pilot, to a teacher where I can mentor a team.

I am really going to disregard everybody’s post, and put purely what I feel, my opinions are my own and may or may not represent my team's feelings of these matches. However as alliance captain and driver, I feel that I have a pretty unique perspective on this situation.

First match: Our plan was to have 492 knock off the bonus ball, grab a 2x ball, than prepare to cap. We were to catch, deliver and than prevent 469 from capping.

What actually happened: 492 was able to trigger the bonus ball, for some reason our basket caught a little piece of the mesh netting and did not open. Result: the balls fell onto our bot with out us catching any. We than decided to go over to the other side and attempt to catch our opponents balls while 492 were to grab a 2x ball and be ready to cap. The only problem is that since we are a 2 wheel drive bot, when we push from the side with out our drive wheels we tend to sometimes tip (we also purposely tip our selves when the balls are jammed in our basket to get them out). Because I was in the heat of the match and not thinking properly, I attempted to push 469 with the non-drive side of our bot. As we started to drive 469 back, our bot rode up 469 and tipped over (469 also tipped over). Result was a loss for us.

Now after the match, I was told that there was a flag thrown, 469 went under the goal, and also broke a part of the goal. My first reaction was to go up to the head ref and ask what was going on. This is what he explained to me (I will try to get this as close to a quote as I can). (Ref) It is all about intention, 469 damaged the field only after they were pushed by us and tipped over. They also did not intend to go under the goal either and they went underneath as a result of us.

(This is what I now feel) The ref was right about the damaging the field, it was our fault for trying to push them and it was completely accidental. Going underneath the goal: To be honest I do not remember nor see in the video any time where 469 went underneath the goal. I can only assume that their "wedge" which assists them to release balls went underneath the goal. If this was the case, yes a DQ should have been called, however I cannot confirm that this happened. If somebody could please PM what happened to me, I would appreciate it.

Second match: What was supposed to happen: 157 was supposed to trigger the bonus ball in auto from slot 1. Seeing that 469 has set up on that side, and that 157 hat to hit the goal to knock off the bonus ball, I decided to switch the robots so that 157 would instead block 868 from potentially blocking our corral with a goal. From there we were supposed to wait the 30 extra seconds. If 469 was going to cap us, we would either close our basket, or drive over to the other side and catch their balls. 157 was to cap with 30 sec left, and than hang from the bar, we were supposed to prevent 469 from capping.

What actually happened: 157 did not have to prevent 868 from blocking the corral, so they grabbed the 2x ball and got ready to cap. When 469 came over to prevent us from catching, I did not move cause I knew that we would still be able to catch the balls. When we caught them, we were to drive away, except that 469 had gotten caught in our netting. Thinking that we would be entangled for the remainder of the match, I told 157 to cap and hang. At about the moment that 157 capped, we came unstuck and were able to deliver balls. Our HP (who I have to say was one of the best shooters in FIRST) had to shoot 24 feet to try to make it into the mobile goal. I should have instructed 157 to decap so we could shoot into the stationary goal. After we dumped we again went at it with 469. They tipped over and did a fantastic job of self-righting and went to go decap our goal. 157 was instructed to go and hang while to defended 469 from decapping. We were able to defend 469 from decapping, however 157 did not have enough time to hang. Result was in a red win.

Once again after the match, I went over to the head ref and asked why there were no penalties on the field because our robot was really disabled for about 35 seconds of the match. Here is what I got out of what he said: (Ref) Your robot was built with netting, because of this; you have to accept that you might get entangled. I warned 469 to get away from your robot and they were able to do so. There will be no penalties.

(This is how I feel) 469's original intent was to attempt to cap us, they lost the ball and decided they would try to block balls with their arm. However they placed their arm too low and went into our robot. They became entangled and after a warning from the ref, tried to get away. Even though they really disabled us for a good portion of the match, I do not feel/hope that 469 tried to cause our robot harm. They only meant to beat us the only way we could be beaten, prevent us from delivering the balls. However, I do feel that in this match, weather or not they tried to disable/entangle/whatever our robot, that some type of penalty should have been called. However, being a referee in the field of soccer, I do know how hard it is to call something. Referees are always put in a losing situation. If they make a call for one team, they get yelled at by the other. The key is to really just go by what you think happened, and that is what the head referee did.

Recap on everything: This year no matter what the outcome, was the most exciting to watch, and participate in. Matches are not won or lost because of the referee, but from good robot design and strategy. Coming into the elims I thought that we did that by picking two fantastic and reliable alliance partners who did everything they were supposed to do. 1218, 469, and 868 won what I feel was the best semi final match I have ever seen or been in. Losing in the semis to the second place alliance is nothing to be disappointed about and while I am sad to have to leave team 93, I know that this is an experience that I will never forget.
__________________
Team 2826 Wave Robotics Mentor Team 93 NEW Apple Corps Alumni
Emcee at the following events in 2014: Northern Lights, Wisconsin, 10000 Lakes, IRI

Wave Robotics 2014 Season:
Northern Lights: Regional Finalist, Quality, Imagery, and Dean's List Finalist: Melissa D.
Wisconsin Regional: Quarter-finalists, Industrial design award.
Reply With Quote
  #38   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-19-2004, 03:06 PM
Stu Bloom's Avatar
Stu Bloom Stu Bloom is offline
I REALLY want to be Andy Baker
FRC #1018 (RoboDevils)
Team Role: Mentor
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 662
Stu Bloom has a reputation beyond reputeStu Bloom has a reputation beyond reputeStu Bloom has a reputation beyond reputeStu Bloom has a reputation beyond reputeStu Bloom has a reputation beyond reputeStu Bloom has a reputation beyond reputeStu Bloom has a reputation beyond reputeStu Bloom has a reputation beyond reputeStu Bloom has a reputation beyond reputeStu Bloom has a reputation beyond reputeStu Bloom has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Stu Bloom Send a message via Yahoo to Stu Bloom Send a message via Skype™ to Stu Bloom
Re: 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyler Olds
Please wait to reply to anything until I have read everything and responded..........

Thanks
Sorry Tyler ... this can't wait ... (oops - took me just a bit too long to finish ...)

And let me apologize now to the entire CD community for what is sure to be as inappropriate a post as the one that started this whole mess. I especially want to apologize to all those who seem to be able to keep a clear head and discuss only the relevant issues when the going gets tough (you know who you are Andy B, Joe J, Dave L, and many others). I know that personal attacks have no place here, but as a referee on the Galileo field I just can't keep this inside any longer.

I am not sure what specific direction this thread was intended to go, and after reading it over several times I doubt Mr. McElroy had enough foresight to "intend" any specific direction, but more likely, as his closing remark seemed to infer, he just wanted to start a "flame war". I interpreted his initial post as a direct attack on hard-working volunteers who have a passion for this organization and what it does for our young adults (but obviously not ALL of them), and the more I read, the hotter I get.

Mr. McElroy,

HOW DARE YOU challenge the character and/or competence of a group of people who are at the very core of this organization's ability to continue to grow and thrive (the VOLUNTEERS). I and the rest of the Referees in all of the Divisions at the Championships worked extremely hard to enforce the rules AS WRITTEN , and AS INSTRUCTED BY FIRST AND THOSE WHO CREATED THE RULES, as consistently and fairly as possible. In fact, some of the rules committee WAS on the Ref crew. If you think you can do a better job I invite you to step up.

Your posts in this thread are showing your age, as well as the justification for your obtaining substantial negative reps. You continue to "rub salt in the wound" by taking every opportunity to respond to others with sarcastic comments, publicly posting remarks that were intended to be PRIVATE, and blatantly ignoring parts of the rules that don't support your argument. I refer you to some of the KEY words in your often quoted, precious rule <G32> - "Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over or entanglement of robots ...". I challenge you to identify even one instance where you could say there was no legitimate defensive maneuver which caused any of the incidents you are so upset about.

And don't pretend that your purpose in this thread was to advance any noble cause. Your sarcasm and bitter criticism are exactly the opposite of graciously discussing the issues. I think you should crawl back into whatever hole you came out of and think about what GP means to you. Good luck finding a sponsor (as your sig line indicates that your team doesn't have one). With your "grace and style" I don't see much success on that front in your future - hopefully someone else is in charge of that initiative. I am truly saddened that a group of hard working, intelligent, motivated High School students has you as a role model.

And by the way, Ken W, I thought I was starting to like you, but ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenWittlief
... I guarantee you I can build something stronger and put an impact point on my machine, find your weak spot and take you out on the field...
... was that a threat? That is a lot different than what I saw in any matches in Atlanta. If you think "that's what FIRST is coming to" then why don't you try it. I would be interested to see if a ref would call that one ... I know I would.


I'm out ... until next year - when you will see me in zebra stripes again. And Ryan, I'll be sure to give your team some "extra special" attention (jk ).
I apologize again ... OK ... I feel better now.
Also, thanks Zzyzx, for your sensible and timely post.
__________________
Stuart Bloom
Mechanical Engineer
Rolls-Royce Corporation
FIRST Team 1018 - Pike HS RoboDevils
My activity for 2012:
  • Boilermaker planning committee
  • Israel Head Ref - DONE (and it was FANTASTIC!)
  • Boilermaker Regional (with 1018) - DONE
  • Midwest Head Ref - DONE
  • WORLD Championships (with 1018) - DONE
  • IRI Head Ref - DONE
  • CAGE Match Head Ref

Last edited by Stu Bloom : 04-19-2004 at 03:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #39   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-19-2004, 03:07 PM
P.J. Baker's Avatar
P.J. Baker P.J. Baker is offline
needs a clever user title
FRC #0177 (Bobcat Robotics)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 1999
Location: Hebron, CT
Posts: 110
P.J. Baker is a glorious beacon of lightP.J. Baker is a glorious beacon of lightP.J. Baker is a glorious beacon of lightP.J. Baker is a glorious beacon of lightP.J. Baker is a glorious beacon of light
Re: 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Baker
It wasn't tipping or damage, but we called a DQ against team 360 in Portland, for an unfortuneate entanglement. It was not intentional, but it was definitely damaging to their opponent.

Andy B.
This is the reason I felt that 469 should have been DQ'd in that match. I don't feel that they intentionally entangled or tipped 93, but their arm did become entangled with 93's basket. This did prevent 93 from doing moving for some time and it did appear to cause damage to 93's robot.

However, I glanced through this year's rules and I did not see anything about accidental entanglement and DQ's. The only references in the robot or game sections of the rules talked about clear entanglement risks (469's arm was not a clear risk) and intentional entanglement. As I read it, the rules did not require the refs to DQ 469.

P.J.
Reply With Quote
  #40   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-19-2004, 03:10 PM
ngreen's Avatar
ngreen ngreen is offline
Robohyo
AKA: nelson green; robohyo
None #1108 (Panther Robotics)
Team Role: College Student
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: Atlanta via Paola, KS
Posts: 791
ngreen has a brilliant futurengreen has a brilliant futurengreen has a brilliant futurengreen has a brilliant futurengreen has a brilliant futurengreen has a brilliant futurengreen has a brilliant futurengreen has a brilliant futurengreen has a brilliant futurengreen has a brilliant futurengreen has a brilliant future
Send a message via MSN to ngreen
Re: 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo

My call would have been pinning. By placing there arm inside of 93, 469 effectively pinned 93 from being able to move for way longer than the allotted time.

I'll agree with the overly aggressive styles of some teams. 469 did a lot of things well but used that powerful arm maliciously a couple of times and should have been penalized. I know their were several other teams that employed this same type of strategies and it got them where they wanted to go this year. Hopefully next year we will make an effort to avoid this type of play. Teams shouldn't win championship by disabling and damaging other robots. IMHO.
__________________
Nelson Green (Panther Robotics 1108)
Chemical Engineering 2007, K-State
Grad School: Georgia Tech (for PhD)

2007 GKC KCP&BE Award
2006 Wisc Chairman's Award & Website
2005 Purdue Chairman's Award & Galileo Finalist
2004 LSR Chairman's Award & Xerox Creativity
2003 LSR Champ,Quality & Team Spirit + Nat All-Star
Reply With Quote
  #41   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-19-2004, 03:18 PM
Sean Schuff's Avatar
Sean Schuff Sean Schuff is offline
is a believer!
AKA: The man with the plan.
FRC #0093 (N.E.W. Apple Corps)
Team Role: Teacher
 
Join Date: May 2003
Rookie Year: 2000
Location: Appleton, Wisconsin
Posts: 310
Sean Schuff has a reputation beyond reputeSean Schuff has a reputation beyond reputeSean Schuff has a reputation beyond reputeSean Schuff has a reputation beyond reputeSean Schuff has a reputation beyond reputeSean Schuff has a reputation beyond reputeSean Schuff has a reputation beyond reputeSean Schuff has a reputation beyond reputeSean Schuff has a reputation beyond reputeSean Schuff has a reputation beyond reputeSean Schuff has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo

Good Monday Afternoon All!

Now for Team 93's “mentor-not-on-the-field, like-to-look-at-the-big-picture, really-knows-what-FIRST-is-all-about” point of view...

First off, let me make it clear that I respectfully agree and disagree with many of the things said here. However, I will not be attacking anybody personally and would appreciate it if you would all do the same. I also feel you should all know that turning our team's misfortune into personal attacks against one another is not in the spirit of FIRST or gracious professionalism. (And don’t make me start in on the other CD post that refers to GP as mere lip service for the sake of winning awards – I couldn’t disagree more with that concept!) If you have a problem, fix it. If you would rather gripe about it and not propose any solutions you are merely becoming a part of the problem and not a part of the solution. Please don’t use the NEW Apple Corps’ misfortune as your own personal or team soapbox. We’re big boys and girls with broad shoulders and WE WILL RETURN!!

To quote the late, great Vince Lombardi of the Green Bay Packers, the best defense is a good offense. This is the philosophy our team followed in designing our robot. We wanted to score points, oodles and oodles of points. If your robot is strictly defensive, points don’t come too easy. Las Guerillas (469) had a great offensive robot. Unfortunately for us their defensive maneuvers were a bit rough. Is that their fault? Most likely not. Perhaps the result of a rookie operator who, in the heat of battle, didn’t operate the claw as gingerly as she should have. Which brings us back to the whole concept of “intention”. No one can tell what is going on in another person’s head so we really can’t judge what someone’s intentions are or were. All we can do, and all the refs can do, is make a call based on what they see. Was it a viscous attack on our robot? Yes. Was it malicious in it’s intent? No. It was a defensive move that went bad quickly. And unfortunately for us we wound up on the short end. But, that’s the way it goes. Sometimes you’re the windshield and sometimes you’re the bug! The big picture – we had an awesome robot that did what we wanted it to do (most of the time) and we got beat by simple misfortune. Bummer.

I am disappointed in the way we were eliminated and feel there was some game play that was a little too “spirited”. Our robot survived two regional events and the national championships with only minor side panel damage from all three. We even had other robots reaching over our “laundry basket” and trying to block balls from dropping into it without inflicting the kind of damage Las Guerillas did in the elimination rounds on Galileo. We took some serious hits and sustained some major damage in our final match of the season. But that’s life and part of the game. Am I disappointed? Yea, a little bit. Am I bitter? I was for a while but I’m over it. Do I get it? You bet I do. It’s not about the end result – it’s about the process. And, most importantly, my students are wiser because of the experience. Great post Tyler! I’m proud of you!! The big picture – my students get what FIRST is all about and are better people because of the experience.

So, who is to blame? Las Guerillas? No! They played a heck of a game out there. I was always impressed by how their robot operated. Blame the refs? No. Pointing fingers at them is unfair. I agree that they should have been a bit more aggressive and, more importantly, consistent, in their play call on the field, however, they aren’t to blame. I did not personally observe any inconsistencies, however, both of my parents were volunteers on Galileo and witnessed these inconsistencies first-hand. Most inconsistency was from ref to ref and not a result of one ref playing favorites or not taking their duties seriously. Now, they may be a bit biased towards team 93, however, I can confidently tell you that my 70+-year-old parents (in their golden retirement years) get no benefit or satisfaction out of telling me about these things. They just told me what they saw and heard. And it bummed me out. FIRST needs to impress upon all refs the need for consistency. I like the idea of a video that illustrates what constitutes game play within the rules and outside the bounds of good sportsmanship. The big picture – the refs do their job out of generosity and dedication to the ideals of FIRST and do the best they can.

I’ve heard this before but it definitely bears repeating. FIRST needs to be less ambiguous with their rules. We ran into this same issue two years ago with the whole “getting-tangled-in-another-teams-tether” debacle. It cost us the title at IRI but wasn’t the fault of the refs – the rule was too “loose” to be interpreted effectively. Perhaps FIRST can leave the words “intention” and “intentional” out of their rules and just call it straight. If you damage a field component, whether intentional or not, you’re DQ’d. Be careful next time. If you use netting on your robot (as we did), be prepared for the consequences of entanglement whether it is intentional or not. We did not build our robot to be an entanglement hazard – we used the netting because it was light. I don’t want us all to begin building aluminum and Lexan plain-Jane boxes because we fear entanglement – that would be just plain boring! Just be prepared for the consequences. And be prepared for the calls of the ref! The big picture – the rules need to be crystal clear to all teams and all refs.

The bottom line is that the FIRST Robotics Competition, like the rest of the world and life itself, is not perfect. We want things to be black and white but it just isn’t that easy. Like I said before, I’m disappointed with the outcome of the matches in question but I’m over it and already looking forward to 2005! Great job Las Guerillas on getting to the national finals. You had a sweet robot! No hard feelings and best of luck next year.

As for this thread – my hope is that this is the last word and we can all move on to more constructive discussions on ChiefDelphi.

Can’t wait to see you all again in St. Louis, Chicago, and Atlanta!!
__________________
I think this latest educational wave is different and much more important. "Chalk and talk" is not dead, but it is mortally wounded. We must change the educational process so that we emphasize helping students learn to learn and, more importantly, learn to think." - Woodie Flowers

Thanks Plexus Corp. for 17 years of support and counting...your company gets it!!

www.nacteam93.com | Tesla Engineering Charter School
Reply With Quote
  #42   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-19-2004, 03:26 PM
Chris Hibner's Avatar Unsung FIRST Hero
Chris Hibner Chris Hibner is offline
Eschewing Obfuscation Since 1990
AKA: Lars Kamen's Roadie
FRC #0051 (Wings of Fire)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 1997
Location: Canton, MI
Posts: 1,404
Chris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond reputeChris Hibner has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo

Quote:
Originally Posted by P.J. Baker
This is the reason I felt that 469 should have been DQ'd in that match. I don't feel that they intentionally entangled or tipped 93, but their arm did become entangled with 93's basket. This did prevent 93 from doing moving for some time and it did appear to cause damage to 93's robot.

However, I glanced through this year's rules and I did not see anything about accidental entanglement and DQ's. The only references in the robot or game sections of the rules talked about clear entanglement risks (469's arm was not a clear risk) and intentional entanglement. As I read it, the rules did not require the refs to DQ 469.

P.J.
This is where I see the problem. 469's arm was clearly not an entanglement risk. If you look at the design, all of the "fingers" of the claw slope outward away from the arm, which should've allowed it to easily slide out of 93's basket. When I review the video, it appears that 93's net was caught on a bolt that attaches a pnuematic cylinder to the gripper. It becomes pretty tough to design a robot if every bolt is considered an entanglement hazard.

On the other hand, 93 has a net. To me, that is an entanglement risk. It's hard to tell 93 they can't use their design because it's an entanglement risk, but at the same time, it's hard to penalize another team for getting tangled in it. If FIRST were to rule that 469 was at fault, then next year I'm going to put a net on my robot and hope to DQ my way through to the championship (okay - I really wouldn't do that, but maybe some team would).

In the past, the "clear entanglement risk" rule existed, and FIRST even stated in updates that nets would be considered entanglement risks and would not be allowed. Of course some teams skirted the rule (afterall what qualifies as a net and what doesn't? it's hard to define). Since entanglements were few and far between, FIRST stopped warning about nets. However, I know from experience that once before a team got too close to a team with a net and the robots became tangled - the team with the net got the blame for being the "entanglement risk". Given this history, I agree with the no-call against 469.
__________________
-
An ounce of perception is worth a pound of obscure.

Last edited by Chris Hibner : 04-19-2004 at 04:16 PM. Reason: typo - spelling error.
Reply With Quote
  #43   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-19-2004, 03:27 PM
KenWittlief KenWittlief is offline
.
no team
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 4,213
KenWittlief has a reputation beyond reputeKenWittlief has a reputation beyond reputeKenWittlief has a reputation beyond reputeKenWittlief has a reputation beyond reputeKenWittlief has a reputation beyond reputeKenWittlief has a reputation beyond reputeKenWittlief has a reputation beyond reputeKenWittlief has a reputation beyond reputeKenWittlief has a reputation beyond reputeKenWittlief has a reputation beyond reputeKenWittlief has a reputation beyond repute
Re: 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Bloom
And by the way, Ken W, I thought I was starting to like you, but ...
__________________________________________________ ____
... I guarantee you I can build something stronger and put an impact point on my machine, find your weak spot and take you out on the field...
__________________________________________________ ____
... was that a threat? That is a lot different than what I saw in any matches in Atlanta. If you think "that's what FIRST is coming to" then why don't you try it. I would be interested to see if a ref would call that one ... I know I would.
not a threat, an attempt to illustrate that the rules in the official manual use what we call 'weasle words' in engineering - when the person writing a spec does not know eactly what to say, so they put in something vague - like 'your robot must be robust'

whatever you build, to your definition of 'robust', I can build something stronger or faster.. that will disable your bot on the field - and the ref is left standing there with nothing to base his call on.

ok, how many PSI or joules/sec impact must we design a bot to for it to be considered 'robust'?

so far no-one has been able to come back and site any examles of a team being disqualified for damaging or tipping another teams robot - but lots of teams got damaged and tipped this year - so why do we have the rule?

for many years FIRST has prided itself on our teams good sportsmanship, and somewhat looked down its collective nose at professional sports - but every year things get more and more agressive and it appears to have reached the point where anything-goes is the only rule in the elimination rounds and the finals

as I aluded to - I have seen things at events this year that would not be allowed in football, soccer, baseball, basketball or even in a HOCKEY game - this is what Im talking about when asking if this is what FIRST has come to?

is this what we want? its like FIRST's dirty little secret - in all the promotional videos you dont see bots being smashed into flying pieces, or bots being rammed and knocked flying on their sides, but its happening in the games, and apparently teams are not even being called for it

so far one ref has pointed out one team getting called for entanglement this year

Im not picking on any one ref or any one event, Im asking - is this where FIRST really wants to go? is this what WE want FIRST to turn into

I vote no. I think the rules should be spelled out more clearly - its would not be hard to make a first draft of what the rules should have spelled out this year, based on the number of occurances of teams being 'taken out' of matches by their opponents at events all around the country.

Last edited by KenWittlief : 04-19-2004 at 03:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #44   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-19-2004, 04:15 PM
Allie Allie is offline
Registered User
#0093 (NewAppleCorps)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Appleton WI
Posts: 36
Allie will become famous soon enoughAllie will become famous soon enough
Send a message via AIM to Allie Send a message via Yahoo to Allie
Re: [moderated] 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo

I am more saddened by the fact that people have been personally attacked then I ever could be by the events which took place on the Galileo field at nationals. I must admit as this was my last year I was very sad to see my team go down the way it did. I will not pretend to be noble and say I was not angry and did not feel it was unfair. As in all competitions the easiest thing to do is point fingers. From our side it was easy to point fingers at both the refs and at team 469, but after looking back I don't feel anyone is to blame.

As a kid I grew up playing sports and once in the heat of the game I ran into a girl. She ran into the boards and broke her wrist. Of course I felt horrible at the time but I did not intend to hurt her in anyway. The refs did not penalize me and I am sure there were many members of her team who thought that was unfair, and were quite mad at the ref for the no call.

I look at what happened on the field between us and 469 in the same light. They injuried us perhaps but as long as it was not something they intended to do how can we really say they are evil or horrible. Accidents will happen.

As for the refs I personally believe what you do is amazing. You volunteer your time and energy to enable us to have this experience. The knowledge I have gained from this program has given me a direction I want to go in life and every last one of you in the pin stripes have been a part of giving me this opportunity. I thank you from the bottom of my heart. I was a lost little girl how had no idea where she was going before this and today I have an idea of what I want to be.

I would also like to say after all the time and energy people put into this program I find it extremely disturbing that anyone can critize what anyone else came up with. Some ideas and designs may have worked better in some cases however any robot out there that did so much as move is an extreme accomplishment and these people should be congradulated. You all put a lot of time into building robots you thought would complete the game the best and every bot I see amazes me in some way.

There is something good to be found in everyone's design please do not choose to point out the negatives. I know I do not like to hear people say negative things about my hard work and I would hate to hurt someone by saying negative things about their hard work.
__________________
N.E.W. AppleCorps Team 93
Appleton WI
Programming team

------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 Newton Division Semi-Finalists
2 Time Xerox Creativity Winner
Semi-Finalists St. Louis Regionals
Quater-Finalists Midwest Regionals
Reply With Quote
  #45   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 04-19-2004, 04:22 PM
Andy Baker's Avatar Woodie Flowers Award
Andy Baker Andy Baker is offline
President, AndyMark, Inc.
FRC #3940 (CyberTooth)
Team Role: Engineer
 
Join Date: May 2001
Rookie Year: 1998
Location: Kokomo, Indiana
Posts: 3,364
Andy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond reputeAndy Baker has a reputation beyond repute
Send a message via AIM to Andy Baker
Re: 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo

All,

We all are passionate about FIRST and we all like the competition. Some like more contact than others. Some want more defined rules. Some want to keep things streamlined and let the referees make the call when it happens.

FIRST, on the field, is a sport. A match is not an engineering specification, a statement of work, or a blueprint. It is an action that is subject to judged opinions. Things are not black and white like they are on a sheet of paper or a computer screen.

Did Michael Jordan push off to clear himself during the 1999 NBA playoff against the Utah Jazz? maybe. Was it called by the ref? no. Does is really matter? no. That was a act during a game... a sport where people try to make the right call and sometimes they miss a call. People are human, refs are human. The refs did the best they could do at the time.

Most of us are engineers or technical people. We want things black and white. We want things explained and justified. Sometimes, we just don't understand the "gray areas".

In FIRST competitions, entanglement, tipping, and intent to damage are all gray areas. The referees have no way to understand the intent of robot drivers, so they look for patterns.

Just some thoughts...

Andy B.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:02 PM.

The Chief Delphi Forums are sponsored by Innovation First International, Inc.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi