OCCRA
Go to Post I even have a t-shirt that says "Actually, I -am- a rocket scientist" :) - dlavery [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 Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-27-2005, 04:35 PM
Eric Brummer Eric Brummer is offline
there's 95% ...
FRC #1097 (Jesuit Robotics S3E)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 31
Eric Brummer will become famous soon enough
Send a message via AIM to Eric Brummer
Re: [moderated]: Worst Call Ever and Congratulations from San Jose

"As I'll explain later, the person you question pursued every possible option to see if there was justification for us to CHANGE our decision. Please note that during the playoffs, especially the championship match, tensions and everything is "on-the-line", but we cannot simply stop making penalty calls, especially when it comes to safety."

This is 100% true. The FIRST officials attempted everything in their power to see that things were given a fair judgement. In the time they attempted to review the call, they could not come up with anything. They tried, but you can't take a day to review a call. The next match had to be played. There was continued discussion about that call but it came down to the fact that no one could find anything against the origional ruling and 254 and their alliance had won two matches.

I gaurentee you, from someone who would have loved to see my team win the regional, that all those involved tried their hardest to eliminate the question behind the ruling, either for or against it so that there wouldn't be any issues.
Reply With Quote
  #17   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-27-2005, 06:18 PM
AmyPrib's Avatar
AmyPrib AmyPrib is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 688
AmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Worst Call Ever and Congratulations from San Jose

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordon Bell
Here's a brief synopsis of what happened: A red robot was in the human player loading station.$@# A blue robot was driving across the field, holding a tetra, on their way to a goal.$@# A red robot in front of the center goal, also holding a tetra, turned and hit the blue robot to intercept them (makes sense, good strategic move).$@# While engaging the blue robot, the red robot pushed the blue robot into the dead red robot in the loading zone.$@# Our interpretation of the chain/cascade rule was that the red robot was responsible for the violation, that the blue robot was clearly avoiding the loading stations and going to score but was pushed into the zone by another red robot.$@# We are confident that there was no intention whatsoever by the red robot to do this - all six teams were playing great, they were all trying to score, and there was very little overly aggressive play in the finals.$@# Good defense at times, but nothing malicious or destructive.$@# Intentional or not, it was a rule violation, and we made the call we did.$@# You might not agree with it, but it was discussed at length before we made the score final.$@#
I've read these posts several times, and for the benefit of everyone, I just want to clarify what happened. Sounds like Red2 pushed Blue1 into Red1 while Red1 was in a loading zone.
The penalty that was assessed, which alliance was it assessed to? According to Update 4 and the examples of G15 they describe, it would seem that no penalty should have been assessed. Specifically Ex8 and second half of Ex4 describe this case.
If a robot of same alliance contacts their own partner in a loading zone, they wouldn't receive a penalty. But if an opponent contacting them was not the "source" of contact, then they also shouldn't receive a penalty. Since Red was the source of contact, then nobody should be penalized.

I am asking because I would like to know if those Examples are still valid. Seems there was an Update that came out later saying that "the process of loading a tetra finishes when a robot leaves the loading zone", but some of the Examples (6-7) seemingly contradict that (since it used to be they had to be physically in the process of loading a tetra). Would it be legal to block a robot from leaving their loading zone, or would you be penalized because they contacted you while they were still in the loading zone?

But purely for the case at your regional, it would seem that neither alliance should have received a penalty if Update 4 is still valid.
I just wanted to make sure I was reading this right, and to check if Update 4 was still in effect. Thanks,
__________________

Co-Chair Boilermaker Regional Planning Committee 2004-2011
2008 St. Louis Regional Finalists and Engineering Inspiration Award
2007 St. Louis Regional Champions - Thanks 1444 & 829! / St. Louis and Boilermaker Quality Award
2006 Boilermaker Chairman's Award
Referee - IRI - 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
2005 Midwest Regional - Semifinalist, Engineering Inspiration Award, and Safety Award / Boilermaker Regional - Judges Award
2004 Midwest Regional Champions - Thanks 269 and 930! / IRI Runner-Up - Thanks to 234 and 447!!!
2004 Championship: Archimedes Finalist - Thanks 716 and 1272!
"We are going to be praised and criticized more than we deserve. We are not to be affected by either." ~ co-worker
Reply With Quote
  #18   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-27-2005, 09:40 PM
Alex1072 Alex1072 is offline
Registered User
AKA: Alex
#1072 (Harker Robotics Team)
Team Role: Leadership
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: San Jose
Posts: 110
Alex1072 is an unknown quantity at this point
Send a message via AIM to Alex1072 Send a message via Yahoo to Alex1072
Re: [moderated]: Worst Call Ever and Congratulations from San Jose

I don't agree that 254 does not deserve a win because they were "given everything". But I also do no understand how this ruling happened. Update #4 (Example 8) clearly states that this kind of a situation does not result in a penalty for either team. I don't recall this ever being changed in later updates, so what happened? I'm sure the judges did believe that they were making a fair judgement, but what was the breakdown that allowed this to happen?
__________________
--------------------------------------
Alex
President
Team 1072 Harker Robotics
Reply With Quote
  #19   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-28-2005, 02:26 AM
Ikeyballz Ikeyballz is offline
Registered User
AKA: Ike Nagamine
None #0368 (Kika Mana (hawaiian for TIGER POWER))
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Rookie Year: 2001
Location: Honolulu
Posts: 5
Ikeyballz will become famous soon enough
Send a message via AIM to Ikeyballz
Re: [moderated]: Worst Call Ever and Congratulations from San Jose

Hi, I am the driver of team 368's robot, and I think since I was directly involved in this, I should post something to stop this thread. I think too much emphasis is being put on winning in this thread. Yes, winning would have been nice, but FIRST is NOT only about winning. It is about learning, being inspired and being gracious professionals.

As a driver, I admit that also I thought it was a questionable call, being that I did not recall that particular rule. I believe I did not drive 254's robot into our teammate and the ruling has never called before, BUT with the pressure and intensity of the matches it may have been over looked and as I had said in the beginning, the ref's call is final. I probably did not notice it, because I was really into the game. I really appreciated the referee calling me over to explain the ruling to me. If the referee felt that I was reckless with the robot and I had endangered someone, I would rather have be called for a penalty than injure someone. I trust the referees to make whatever decision they believe they should make. This is also part of the game. If FIRST says that they cannot be questioned, take it in the spirit of the game, and move on.

I would have loved to win; Team 368 has been always trying to win at the SV regional, but being gracious professionalís means more then just winning. I was glad to just be in the finals, after a lot of bad breaks, ending with our ranking the lowest ever in McKinley history. Thanks for picking us 1097 and 852! You guys were an awesome alliance .

Team 254ís alliance deserved the win regardless of what others may think. We gave it our all and tried our best. Whatís done is done and that should be left on the field. I was just glad to have been able to give their alliance a run for their money. Congrats! You guys were awesome.

Dear Ductapejason, thanks for your support of our alliance. We appreciate it, but Mr. Morrella was directly involved in giving us an opportunity to even BE associated with FIRST Robotics, let alone, allowing us to be able to compete in FIRST Robotics competitions. He came all the way down to Hawaii with a couple students to encourage us to join FIRST. I am thankful that I could have even been in such an exciting match, and that we even HAD the chance to compete for first place. We understand that emotions were high, and Iím sure you feel like you opened Pandoraís Box. So everyone please let this thread die out. There is no sense in writing anymore about this ruling.

I love FIRST robotics for what it stands. The competition is an exciting part of it, but please donít let it distract us from the real ideals of FIRST; Gracious Professionalism.

- Ike Nagamine
Reply With Quote
  #20   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-28-2005, 12:08 PM
AmyPrib's Avatar
AmyPrib AmyPrib is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 688
AmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [moderated]: Worst Call Ever and Congratulations from San Jose

I'm hoping someone can comment on the Update 4 issue and this call. This can be all rolled into the inconsistent call controversies in other threads. It's in the past, and nothing can be done for this case, but it can be cleared up for future cases. In earlier posts in this thread, it was mentioned that everything possible was done to figure out if it was the right call, including getting all the rules reviewed before making the call.
So, I am wondering how the big long Update 4, with all the clear cut examples of the biggest controversial rule G15, was overlooked. That update was made because of all the "what if" Q/A's that were out there regarding G15, including the case that actually happened here.

Bottom line, I am wondering if Update 4 is still good, and that in the future the correct calls will be made. If anyone out there (like a head ref or FIRSTer) has the answer, please let us know so we will know what to expect later.
Thanks,
__________________

Co-Chair Boilermaker Regional Planning Committee 2004-2011
2008 St. Louis Regional Finalists and Engineering Inspiration Award
2007 St. Louis Regional Champions - Thanks 1444 & 829! / St. Louis and Boilermaker Quality Award
2006 Boilermaker Chairman's Award
Referee - IRI - 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
2005 Midwest Regional - Semifinalist, Engineering Inspiration Award, and Safety Award / Boilermaker Regional - Judges Award
2004 Midwest Regional Champions - Thanks 269 and 930! / IRI Runner-Up - Thanks to 234 and 447!!!
2004 Championship: Archimedes Finalist - Thanks 716 and 1272!
"We are going to be praised and criticized more than we deserve. We are not to be affected by either." ~ co-worker
Reply With Quote
  #21   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-28-2005, 02:49 PM
DougHogg DougHogg is offline
Robot-A-Holic
FRC #0980 (The ThunderBots)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: S. California
Posts: 324
DougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud of
Re: [moderated]: Worst Call Ever and Congratulations from San Jose

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmyPrib
I'm hoping someone can comment on the Update 4 issue and this call. This can be all rolled into the inconsistent call controversies in other threads. It's in the past, and nothing can be done for this case, but it can be cleared up for future cases. In earlier posts in this thread, it was mentioned that everything possible was done to figure out if it was the right call, including getting all the rules reviewed before making the call.
So, I am wondering how the big long Update 4, with all the clear cut examples of the biggest controversial rule G15, was overlooked. That update was made because of all the "what if" Q/A's that were out there regarding G15, including the case that actually happened here.

Bottom line, I am wondering if Update 4 is still good, and that in the future the correct calls will be made. If anyone out there (like a head ref or FIRSTer) has the answer, please let us know so we will know what to expect later.
Thanks,
I am not a referee or a FIRSTer, but I sincerely doubt that any of the rules were overlooked.

These other rules also apply:

Quote:
<S01> If at any time the ROBOT operation is deemed unsafe, by the determination of the referees, the ROBOT will be disabled for the remainder of the match.

S05> A ROBOT may not impede the placement of TETRAS on the loading structures or the hand-off of a TETRA by a HUMAN PLAYER to a ROBOT. No HUMAN PLAYER or field attendant may be accosted by a ROBOT while placing TETRAS. Violations will result immediate disabling of the offending ROBOT, and disqualification of the alliance.
Although there seems to be a conflict in the rules, whenever safety is an issue, I am totally certain that any apparent conflict will be resolved in favor of safety, as it should be. I know of no other competition in the world where people interact with machines. In my opinion, it is only through maintaining the highest level of safety that this interaction can continue. I applaud the referees for keeping this priority firmly in mind.
__________________
FIRST Team 980, The ThunderBots
2002: S. California Rookie All Stars
2004: S. California: Regional Champion,
Championship Event: Galileo 2nd seed,
IRI: Competition Winner, Cal Games: Competition Winner
2005: Arizona: 1st seed
Silicon Valley: Regional Champion (Thanks Teams 254 and 22)
S. California: Regional Runners Up (Thanks Teams 22 and 968)
Reply With Quote
  #22   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-28-2005, 04:15 PM
Eric Brummer Eric Brummer is offline
there's 95% ...
FRC #1097 (Jesuit Robotics S3E)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Sacramento, California
Posts: 31
Eric Brummer will become famous soon enough
Send a message via AIM to Eric Brummer
Re: [moderated]: Worst Call Ever and Congratulations from San Jose

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmyPrib
I'm hoping someone can comment on the Update 4 issue and this call. This can be all rolled into the inconsistent call controversies in other threads. It's in the past, and nothing can be done for this case, but it can be cleared up for future cases. In earlier posts in this thread, it was mentioned that everything possible was done to figure out if it was the right call, including getting all the rules reviewed before making the call.
So, I am wondering how the big long Update 4, with all the clear cut examples of the biggest controversial rule G15, was overlooked. That update was made because of all the "what if" Q/A's that were out there regarding G15, including the case that actually happened here.

Bottom line, I am wondering if Update 4 is still good, and that in the future the correct calls will be made. If anyone out there (like a head ref or FIRSTer) has the answer, please let us know so we will know what to expect later.
Thanks,
Ok, this is my view of what I saw happen so it may not be 100% accurate. I was sitting at the scoring table running the Real Time Scoring for the Red Side and also helping with updating the scores on the computer system after each match so I didn't actually see to the full extent what happened.

THE FOLLOWING IS NOT OFFICIAL RULES SO DO NOT READ THIS AND MAGICALLY APPLY IT. It is an example.
As far as the rules go, I suppose the refs were just not in the know on that specific rule. They made an error. They did however use their judgement. The logic isn't that far out. If a redrobot01 gets hit by a blue robot in the loading zone, the blue robot is assessed a violation penalty of 30 points, therefor if a redrobot02 caused a blue robot to hit the redrobot01 then it's the redrobot02's fault for hitting the blue robot into the redrobot01 make an unsafe situation so the second red robot should be given the 30 point penalty.
So it's easy to see they followed their own logic and best judgement on what the ruling would be.

After the match they halted the posting of the scores and briefly explained the penalty. They then retracted everything while members of FIRST tried to figure out the official ruling. No one outside of the people at the regional were reachable whom they were supposed to call for guidance on referee calls and the rules. Someone suggested that the rule would be newer and the latest update was not with us. They flipped through the hard copy of the rules on site while two members working at the scoring station got online and searched through the pdf files. Since it was suggested they were in the later revisions of rules (since they were based off the Q&A I belive) it would seem to make sense they would be newer rules. Since we were told to try Update 15, we did with no luck, and then started going backwards through the rules. The second match was won by 254 and their alliance. Again the scores were halted while attempting to come to a better conclusion on the previous match. We did not come across Update #4 (i believe my browsers being slow so i can't go back and confirm whether its 3 or 4) until about 10 minutes after the Second Finals Match scores had been posted so by that point it was a moot point, 254's alliance had already been told they'd won the second match, and the first based on the origional call. They won. It would be just as much a travesty to post the 2nd match results and then decide to tell other teams that no, they in fact did not win as they were told by the scoring and refs they did. You can't allow complete questioning of scores, there would be no end to it. Good calls are made. There was no "BAD" call. The referees used their best judgement to assess the situation.
Reply With Quote
  #23   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-28-2005, 05:14 PM
AmyPrib's Avatar
AmyPrib AmyPrib is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 688
AmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [moderated]: Worst Call Ever and Congratulations from San Jose

Everyone keeps talking about safety being the concern.
In re-reading Gordon's post, I don't think he mentioned they made the call due to safety. He said that it was a "rule violation" based on the chain/cascade rule (?) and from what I gather, called a 30pt penalty because of a robot interfering with another in the loading zone. Disabling is the result of a safety issue... a 30pt penalty is the result of a G15 violation.

If safety were the concern, then one would figure that almost anytime you interfere with a robot in a HP loading zone, it should be disabled, because any interference there could cause an unsafe condition. So why have all the examples in Update 4 or a 30pt penalty at all in this case...Now the refs have to decide whether or not to penalize for being unsafe, or for interfering, or both... the penalties are different in each case though. Yes -it's a tough job those refs have! They are volunteers and give us their time. But it would seem like someone in that group would have come across Update 4 in their preparation for becoming a ref.

So this is why I ask, if someone that made that call could clarify. Was it called because of safety.....which if it were, disablement instead of 30pts should have been the penalty... or was it a penalty solely based on the G15 violation....I am not saying that the Update was definitely overlooked, but if it were looked at, how was the conclusion made, that even though it clearly states this exact case results in no penalty, that a 30pt penalty was given?

I am not pointing any fingers, or asking anyone to say they were wrong, or trying to beat a dead horse. I am trying to figure out why this happened (which I personally don't think is too much to ask), and how it will be called in the future for others, because this could very well happen in the future to anyone and would like to know an official take on it. I also hope that nobody is offended by the questions I ask, it's simply looking for feedback on what may have been an incorrect call. It's slightly different when you have inconsistencies on aggressive play, or intentional tipping, etc, because it's up to different interpretations... but if a rule clearly states something, then it's not a judgement call and one might have a hard time justifying why a call was made.

This particular case has no impact on me directly. But with seeing all the controversy talked about lately on inconsistent calls, I am wondering how the rule update 4 was not followed. There may very well be something I'm overlooking, but that's why I'm asking. It could have been a pure mistake. People/Refs make mistakes, and we live with it. But with all the hoopla about G15 early on before competition started, one would hope that everyone knows those rules in and out by now.
__________________

Co-Chair Boilermaker Regional Planning Committee 2004-2011
2008 St. Louis Regional Finalists and Engineering Inspiration Award
2007 St. Louis Regional Champions - Thanks 1444 & 829! / St. Louis and Boilermaker Quality Award
2006 Boilermaker Chairman's Award
Referee - IRI - 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
2005 Midwest Regional - Semifinalist, Engineering Inspiration Award, and Safety Award / Boilermaker Regional - Judges Award
2004 Midwest Regional Champions - Thanks 269 and 930! / IRI Runner-Up - Thanks to 234 and 447!!!
2004 Championship: Archimedes Finalist - Thanks 716 and 1272!
"We are going to be praised and criticized more than we deserve. We are not to be affected by either." ~ co-worker
Reply With Quote
  #24   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-28-2005, 08:09 PM
Dr.Bot
 
Posts: n/a
Re: [moderated]: Worst Call Ever and Congratulations from San Jose

I had a chance to look at the 'official' video. Unfortunately the sound on the tape is of such poor quality that it is unusable. I will encode the match and put it up later this week as soon as I can get a clean copy of the tape.

The action that is shown on the tape is at about 90 to 81 seconds on the game clock. The official tape has the automatic scoring on the screen, so the bottom of the screen is blocked. The point of view is from the Red Human Player's station. What I see on the tape is 368 and 254 in a shoving match at the center goal. 254 with a Tetra held high, is attempting to head toward the red home row human player corner. it looks like 368 pushes on 254 (high) and causes 254 to tilt dangerously toward the human player zone (closest to the center) At this time 1097 is in that zone and is being loaded by their human player. From the POV of the camera it looks like that a cascade is about to take place with 254 being pushed into 1097and 1097 falling over and injuring the human player. It looks like 1097 is hit (The robot jerks) just as the human player is loading the tetra. You can see the ref take a flag in his hand immediately hold it up and throw it down.

I think the ref was fully justified in throwing a flag. Now whether or not a DQ of 368 with shutting them down, or assessing a 30 point penalty against the alliance was the correct call doesn't really matter. Is unfortunate that
some legitimate tough competition led to a situation where a safety penalty decided the outcome of the match. I have lost matches because of bad calls and it really hurts. I don't think this was a bad call. It seems that all the teams are O.K. with this so I think it is time to close this thread and think about next week and the Nationals. I am sure that all the head refs will carefully review this match and make certain that the correct action is taken, if this situation reoccurs.

Last edited by Dr.Bot : 03-28-2005 at 09:25 PM. Reason: Wrong team number given
Reply With Quote
  #25   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-28-2005, 10:27 PM
DougHogg DougHogg is offline
Robot-A-Holic
FRC #0980 (The ThunderBots)
Team Role: Coach
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Rookie Year: 2002
Location: S. California
Posts: 324
DougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud ofDougHogg has much to be proud of
Re: [moderated]: Worst Call Ever and Congratulations from San Jose

Quote:
Originally Posted by AmyPrib
Everyone keeps talking about safety being the concern.
In re-reading Gordon's post, I don't think he mentioned they made the call due to safety.
If you go to page one of this thread and choose "Find" from the "Edit" menu and type "safe", you'll find that "safety" is mentioned three times and that Gordon did mention it in his post, and others who were involved in helping to resolve the matter mentioned "safety" as well. (Use "Find again" to see the second and third instances.)

As to safety being an disqualification matter, as I said in the Silicon Valley Regional thread, I imagine that the safety issue resolved before the referees disabled any of the robots involved. It seems to me that a 30 point penalty is just one step below being disabled, and I think that is as it should be. Disabling a robot should be a last resort, and I don't think that referees should be told that they have to disable a robot or do nothing in a safety situation. If our team does something that causes the referees to have concern about safety, I expect to get a penalty if the situation is minor and quickly resolves. If the situation continues or is serious, I expect to be disabled.

In any case, I applaud your persistence in trying to eliminate any confusion on the rules as it would definitely help if everyone was on the same page.

I imagine the National Basketball League and other sporting events would have a lot of wrinkles to iron out if they had a new game every year. I don't know of any other group who would have the nerve to create a new game every year. Thank you FIRST for having the willingness to go where no other group dares to tread in the interests of helping today's youth and the world to a better future.

I'm afraid that there will always be holes and apparent contradictions in the rules in a competition that is recreated every year with many new rules and situations. Maybe it is time to have several very experienced senior referees available for telephone calls by a "hot line" during all our matches.

In any case, I hope everyone will keep safety as the highest priority during the rest of the season. I would hate to see human player interaction eliminated from the game. (Honestly, can you think of any other group that would dare to have robots getting playing objects from human players?)
__________________
FIRST Team 980, The ThunderBots
2002: S. California Rookie All Stars
2004: S. California: Regional Champion,
Championship Event: Galileo 2nd seed,
IRI: Competition Winner, Cal Games: Competition Winner
2005: Arizona: 1st seed
Silicon Valley: Regional Champion (Thanks Teams 254 and 22)
S. California: Regional Runners Up (Thanks Teams 22 and 968)
Reply With Quote
  #26   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-28-2005, 11:06 PM
huskiepride6505 huskiepride6505 is offline
Registered User
#0065 (Huskie Brigade)
Team Role: Teacher
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Rookie Year: 2005
Location: Pontiac, MI
Posts: 2
huskiepride6505 will become famous soon enoughhuskiepride6505 will become famous soon enough
Re: [moderated]: Worst Call Ever and Congratulations from San Jose

Hi all...I am a new mentor to FIRST this year and am just amazed by the quality experience that this provides for students. I am even more amazed at the amount of volunteer power and committment required to make these events work. But I have learned very quickly that FIRSt is a small community where the lines of competitor and supporter are mixed to reach the heights of "coopertition."
In so saying, it is our charge to must remain cognizant of an apparent, implied, or perceived partiality on the part of anyone involved. Most FIRSTers became dedicated to this cause through their affilition with some team at some time. Though all my try to avoid it, human natures leads us to stand by our own. I must admit that my team at one time or another has felt that a team affiliation of a person with "authority" may have influenced decisions that affect our success. It is this small cast of doubt that we must protect ourselves from as we become one of the strongest competitions in this nation and beyond. To feel defeated on the basis of bais is a hard thing to overcome. We want all to take victory and defeat with pride, knowing that each individual gave their best and it is just a game.
Reply With Quote
  #27   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-29-2005, 12:11 AM
CJO's Avatar
CJO CJO is offline
Emeritus Pain in the $@#$@#$@#
AKA: Christopher J. O'Connell
None #1097 (Site 3 Engineering)
Team Role: Alumni
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Latrobe (over the rainbow), CA
Posts: 217
CJO will become famous soon enoughCJO will become famous soon enough
Re: [moderated]: Worst Call Ever and Congratulations from San Jose

To clarify, as I was the person at the scoring table who found update number 4 for Jason Morella, Jason stated that "in the act of a blue and red robot touching, there is automatically 30 points of penalty, the only quesiton is on which alliance the penalty is assesed." As I stated in my letter to the FIRST rules commitee, this is the opposite of gracious professionalism, creating a situation where teams try to screw each other. In fairness to Jason Morella, he could not reach any of the rules committe on the phone, and made a judegement call.

THAT HAVING BEEN SAID, as Mark Leon said, the match should not have been called on the recollection of an example in an update to a rule (at the time, Jason could not find the printed rule). Furthermore, numerous testimony of people on the field indicated that the red robot was backing out of the loading zone at the time.

Therefore, yes, a judgement call had to be made, but the call should have been to replay the match, not to call the outcome of a regional.

I have a lot of problems with team 254 (among other things, during the playoff rounds I saw four NASA engineers working on their robot), but I do not believe that they had a hand in throwing the regional. Still, this was the wrong call. How do I know? In three years of FIRST I have never seen the arena boo. Not just one or two individuals, but hundreds of people. As I noted in my letter to the rules commission, this call was the breakdown of gracious professionalism.
__________________
Team 1097 -- Site 3 Engineering
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2003 Sacramento Rookie All Star
2003 Silicon Valley Rookie All Star
2004 Sacramento Engineering Inspiration Award
2004 Sacramento Visualization Award
2004 Outstanding Volunteer Award (G. Glasser)
2004 Silicon Valley Sportsmanship Award
2004 National Visualization Runner Up
2004 Cal Games Finalist
2005 Sacramento Sportsmanship Award
2005 Sacramento #1 seed
2005 Sacramento Finalist

2005 Silicon Valley Sportsmanship Award
2005 Silicon Valley #1 Seed
2005 Silicon Valley Finalist

Reply With Quote
  #28   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-29-2005, 10:19 AM
Gordon Bell Gordon Bell is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: San Jose
Posts: 2
Gordon Bell is a glorious beacon of lightGordon Bell is a glorious beacon of lightGordon Bell is a glorious beacon of lightGordon Bell is a glorious beacon of lightGordon Bell is a glorious beacon of lightGordon Bell is a glorious beacon of light
Re: [moderated]: Worst Call Ever and Congratulations from San Jose

OK, after following up further with FIRST, and after reading a few valid and respectfully worded opinions, I can further clarify the issues for everyone. (to be clear, this reply is for those on this thread who have practiced "gracious professionalism" and expressed their views with clarity and maturity. Under no circumstances would I take the time to reply to the original poster of this thread, as his 3rd reply showed that all is views are jaded and colored by a clear resentment, jealousy, and pettiness toward another fellow FIRST team - the values and lessons of FIRST are truly noble, but he proves that they may not reach everyone).

All may not agree, but I think I can put an end to any debate after hearing what various concerns are:

1 - One of my referees did throw a flag for the situation that has been discussed. Let me one thing clear, the human player of the dead robot was in the process of putting the Tetra in/on his robot at the VERY MOMENT that his robot was hit by the Blue robot being pushed by the Red Robot.

2 - There were two issues discussed. One is that of is there a 30 point penalty, and second that there was a safety penalty. Which team, if any, to assess a 30 point penalty was the part we couldn't find the most recent ruling for. Unfortunately the set of rules we as refs were told were the most current were the Revised Rules (which you can find on the FIRST web site). After some detective work today, we have found that a mistake was made by FIRST: The revised rules, which we were told now included any clarifications or changes from updates, had the changes for G14, G16 and others - but somehow the update and examples for G 15 were not in the rules we were given. The rules at the SVR said that the offending robot was to be assessed a 30 pt penalty, which is what we did. If we had seen the example which clarified the exact situation which happened, neither alliance (Red or Blue) would have been assessed a 30 pt penalty.

3 - HOWEVER, and this is important, NONE OF NUMBER 2 changes the fact that the primary reason the flag was thrown was because the situation was a clear safety hazard, as the human player was interacting with the robot when it was hit by the other robots (Amy, you didn't think I referenced Safety in my original post, but I did - it was our main concern and I did state that it was "a very dangerous situation"). S01 and S05 are very clear, and while we did not feel the operation of the second robot was intentionally unsafe, there was NO DOUBT that what happened was a violation of S05, since the Human Player was handing off a Tetra to a robot at the exact (yes, exact) moment the second red robot pushed the blue robot into the dead red partner bot.

4 - What does this all mean? We had three choices - here is what we DID decide and what we SHOULD have decided.

We were not 100% sure of the G15 interpretation, went with the wording of the rule in the updated revision we had, and felt it was a 30 pt penalty. We knew it was a violation of S05, which is very clear. While extreme, the wording is very clear, our only choice was to DQ the alliance.

We did not feel the need to assess two penalties, the 30 pt penalty was extreme enough and DQing the alliance on top of that would have seemed like pouring salt in the wound. So once we had found wording that we felt supported giving a 30pt penalty, we went with the less extreme of the two and stopped there. With hindsight, it would have been easier and less painful to just turn in the DQ right off the bat and not spend the time trying to verify the wording for G15. But give the FIRST staff at the event credit, even though they didn't have the rules revised 100%, they did "know" that something was not right about the wording we went off of and spent a lot of time trying to track down the correct interpretation.

In the end, there is NO dispute about the outcome of the finals of this event. Whether we had the correct version of the updates or not doesn't really matter, we did incorrectly use our logic pattern as someone said and assessed a 30pt penalty that we shouldn't have. But the alliance should have been DQ'd anyway per rule S05. We didn't write the rule, and whether people want to argue if that is too extreme or not is another issue. But the rules were and are clear. Regardless of our mistaken interpretation of G15, the situation that was brought up to start this thread has a CLEAR result under the rules - the Blue Alliance would have won the match if the rules as written were applied correctly. Luckily I think all present at the event would agree that the Blue Alliance was the clear and decisive winner of the second final match (with no penalties if my memory serves...if not, I have no doubt someone will correct me in seconds).

I feel bad that we misinterpreted one rule while we were right about the safety violation. I will admit that I feel much better knowing that under the rules we did not award a "win" to the wrong alliance. That is something which would bother me, as I know and admire how much time and effort everyone puts into their teams. Regardless, I apologize for any commotion our enforcing one incorrect interpretation instead of the one correct violation may have caused. We deliberated the situation thoroughly and did the best we could. I apologize even more for the length of my posts, those who know me know I am rarely long winded and avoid going on at all costs. Since some very false and incorrect claims were made in this thread, and since I was involved and know the true details, this seems like a situation where many want and deserve a full understanding of the facts.

The silver lining is that while the correct alliance still won, and this has helped us and FIRST to see a mistake in the wording of the rules revision. As I am the Head Ref at one more competition this upcoming weekend, I am glad we have found that the revised rules were missing the examples for G15 and we'll do our best once again to enforce all the rules consistently and fairly at the events this week.

I hope in some way this lets those on the red alliance at least put to rest any anger or fears that they were "robbed" of a win in the first match. I hope even more that those on both alliances know that they did an incredible job, know that every team played great and put on a great show in the playoffs, and that everyone on all the teams can look back on what they've accomplished this year with pride and not get caught up in some of the things that ruin other sports in this country.

Again, congratulations to every team that competed at the Silicon Valley Regional, you all have a lot to be proud of.

Gordon Bell
Reply With Quote
  #29   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-29-2005, 01:03 PM
AmyPrib's Avatar
AmyPrib AmyPrib is offline
Registered User
no team
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Rookie Year: 2003
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 688
AmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond reputeAmyPrib has a reputation beyond repute
Re: [moderated]: Worst Call Ever and Congratulations from San Jose

Gordon,
I want to thank you for taking the time to write the well-written post to explain and clarify what really happened and why the call was made.

Doug - I know safety was mentioned in Gordon's first post and I know it was a big concern.... I read it several times. However, I kept reading that the "reason" they made the 30pt penalty call was due to the cascade, robot, interference violation....But because I'm so familiar with the G15 Update4, I questioned why that happened.

I was just trying to understand the "reason" for the 30pt penalty... was it because of G15 violation, or was it because of safety... It seems to have been both. But nowhere in the rules did I read that a 30pt flag (or any pts penalty) should be thrown for a safety issue (just a disable and possible DQ), so I became confused as to what actually happened. But now we know updated information was not available.

I'm sure everyone appreciated the effort put into finding the correct answer during the regional and I can only hope that all refs take that kind of time and consideration.

The reason I kept asking questions was because I wanted to make sure that I didn't overlook something somewhere along the line, because maybe I was. I had no personal stake in this situation, but I also wanted to bring the possibility of an incorrect call to attention so that it might be avoided in the future. I had no bad intentions, and wanted to help eliminate the possiblity of this issue down the road. Everyone does their best, but everyone makes mistakes, and we ALL learn from them. While pointing it out may not have been the original intent of the thread, I don't think there is any harm in bringing these points up as they're seen, as I think it can benefit everyone.

At regionals, are all revised rules and Updates printed out and available for the reffing staff? If not, I would propose that as being fundamental in possibly making a refs job a tad bit easier in certain situations.

Thanks again, and good luck to everyone,
Amy
__________________

Co-Chair Boilermaker Regional Planning Committee 2004-2011
2008 St. Louis Regional Finalists and Engineering Inspiration Award
2007 St. Louis Regional Champions - Thanks 1444 & 829! / St. Louis and Boilermaker Quality Award
2006 Boilermaker Chairman's Award
Referee - IRI - 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
2005 Midwest Regional - Semifinalist, Engineering Inspiration Award, and Safety Award / Boilermaker Regional - Judges Award
2004 Midwest Regional Champions - Thanks 269 and 930! / IRI Runner-Up - Thanks to 234 and 447!!!
2004 Championship: Archimedes Finalist - Thanks 716 and 1272!
"We are going to be praised and criticized more than we deserve. We are not to be affected by either." ~ co-worker
Reply With Quote
  #30   Spotlight this post!  
Unread 03-29-2005, 05:31 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: [moderated]: Worst Call Ever and Congratulations from San Jose

Singling out a fellow FIRST team in these public forums, and saying that they are cheaters, have everything given to them, or that they don't deserve what they get is inappropriate, demeaning, and gutless. If you have a problem with a team, go to that team and address it with them. Don't air your slanderous opinions here for all to see. Jealously is an ugly vice. Don't let it get the best of you.

This is exactly the sort of thing that not only tarnishes this website, but gives good people in FIRST good reason to focus their attention elsewhere, to a different worthy cause.

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 10:48 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