IRI Ball denial and G31

[Gdeaver]

Right or wrong I started a new thread for this. I have noticed that many teams used a ball denial strategy that involved not returning balls to the playing field and allowing balls to accumulate in the coral. G31 should penalize this, however I have not seen it enforced. The refs are too focused on the field to pay attention to it. This will continue to be a viable strategy unless The IRI powers would decide to add two officials to monitor the coral and inbounder play. So with all the supper shooters does this affect the game play for IRI? Can't score if your ball starved. This is not a rule change , just a decision to enforce current rules. What do you think.

[CalTran]

Although I'm not familiar with the exact strategy you're describing, I assume the alliances in question are withholding more than the allotted 6 balls?

[LeelandS]

Right or wrong I started a new thread for this. I have noticed that many teams used a ball denial strategy that involved not returning balls to the playing field and allowing balls to accumulate in the coral. G31 should penalize this, however I have not seen it enforced. The refs are too focused on the field to pay attention to it. This will continue to be a viable strategy unless The IRI powers would decide to add two officials to monitor the coral and inbounder play. So with all the supper shooters does this affect the game play for IRI? Can't score if your ball starved. This is not a rule change , just a decision to enforce current rules. What do you think.

I believe the strategy is not enacted the way you are thinking it, though I could be wrong.

You are thinking of the "Ball Starvation" strategy in which balls are not returned immediately to the field to keep them away from the opponents. The way this strategy is enacted, however, is not through leaving the balls in the corral (which is a violation of G31). It is done by each inbounder picking up their 2 balls out of the corral, but not returning them to the field immediately. As long as the number of balls being held in the alliance station does not exceed 6, there is no rule violation.

For reference:


Rule G31
Only Inbounders may contact Basketballs; each Inbounder may hold a maximum of two Basketballs. During Teleop, Inbounders must remove Basketballs from the Corral immediately upon arrival. All Basketballs in the Alliance Station must be held by Inbounders once removed from the Corral.
Violation: Foul

[Brandon Holley]

Whether intentional or unintentional, I saw what the OP is describing numerous times at events. With 5 referees on the field (4 + 1 head ref), there was no one to monitor the driver stations specifically. The corrals are not visible from the field side of the wall either, making enforcement next to impossible for 1 person who is watching a quadrant of the field.

-Brando

[Laaba 80]

This will continue to be a viable strategy unless The IRI powers would decide to add two officials to monitor the coral and inbounder play.

This is not a viable strategy, this is willingly breaking the rules. Why not just show up with a 140 lb robot since they aren't being weighed?

[Gregor]

Whether intentional or unintentional, I saw what the OP is describing numerous times at events. With 5 referees on the field (4 + 1 head ref), there was no one to monitor the driver stations specifically. The corrals are not visible from the field side of the wall either, making enforcement next to impossible for 1 person who is watching a quadrant of the field.

-Brando

It it fairly obvious when people leave balls in the corral. Sometimes its hard to notice one ball, but when balls are being purposefully left, the refs tend to notice an influx of balls being scored with minimal being returned. However an extra official behind each alliance station would solve all problems.

[Siri]

I believe the strategy is not enacted the way you are thinking it, though I could be wrong.

You are thinking of the "Ball Starvation" strategy in which balls are not returned immediately to the field to keep them away from the opponents. The way this strategy is enacted, however, is not through leaving the balls in the corral (which is a violation of G31). It is done by each inbounder picking up their 2 balls out of the corral, but not returning them to the field immediately. As long as the number of balls being held in the alliance station does not exceed 6, there is no rule violation.

For reference:No, he's talking about willfully breaking G31 by leaving balls in the corral without getting caught. (Some teams do it by holding over 6 in their hands, but this is more obvious.)

It happens. In fact, it's happened a lot. I've seen it (webcast and live) missed probably 3x times than it's called. It can be very difficult to spot. Drives me utterly crazy both while coaching and while reffing. [I'll leave it at that.]

[jspatz1]

An alliance can legally maintain control of 17 balls in pursuit of a starvation strategy - 6 in the hands of in-bounders, 9 in the possession of robots, and two left on their alliance bridge. A perfectly legitimate strategy and one that we considered. This does suggest however that you will be outscored in the process of collecting these balls (6 unreturned.) The intent would be to rally with these balls when it is too late for your opponent to answer. Requires well timed and reliable inbounding of the 6 balls, quick and reliable acquisition by robots, and quick shooting with no or very few missed shots. Obviously a strategy only for an alliance with great confidence in their ability. Winning autonomous would improve one's position to attempt it.

[akoscielski3]

Honestly I think that ball starvation would be a stupid strategy at IRI. I think this because of the Finals in GTR west. If you watch 2056's and 1114's human players feed balls across the field as soon as they are in there hands. In IRI I think that the robots have a better chance of scoring the balls than the himan players in the last 30 seconds. So there is no point in keeping those 6 balls, to just throw and hope for a basket or two. Just feed them to your robot and you will get more points.

[jspatz1]

Honestly I think that ball starvation would be a stupid strategy at IRI. I think this because of the Finals in GTR west. If you watch 2056's and 1114's human players feed balls across the field as soon as they are in there hands. In IRI I think that the robots have a better chance of scoring the balls than the himan players in the last 30 seconds. So there is no point in keeping those 6 balls, to just throw and hope for a basket or two. Just feed them to your robot and you will get more points.

The strategy is not to keep the balls for human player shots. The strategy is to gain control of most of the balls (hoarding), then score with them (with robots) late in the match when it is too late for your opponent to score with them again. Not promoting it as wise, just explaining the concept. Again it would take great confidence, execution, and timing.

[Lil' Lavery]

G31 offenses usually have to be pretty blatant to be caught (though brief/minor infractions typically wouldn't influence the outcome of a match anyway). I can only think of one match this year where G31 was actually called, despite seeing violations on a handful of occasions. But without penalties being announced, it's entirely possible there were other occasions it was called and I didn't realize it was called.

FWIW, the one instance it was being called was a clear intentional violation where the alliance never returned a single ball to the field.

[jblay]

When we changed to more of a defensive strategy at championship part of our strategy was to be in the way of the lane that most inbounders took to put balls onto their side of the field. Our strategy would be to stay on the offensive side of the field for a short period at the start of the match, before crossing over to the defensive zone, and try to cause the inbounded balls to get stopped by our bot and stay on our side of the field for our partners. Quite a few times I saw an inbounder with more than 2 balls in their hands waiting for us to get out of the way.

[Siri]

When we changed to more of a defensive strategy at championship part of our strategy was to be in the way of the lane that most inbounders took to put balls onto their side of the field. Our strategy would be to stay on the offensive side of the field for a short period at the start of the match, before crossing over to the defensive zone, and try to cause the inbounded balls to get stopped by our bot and stay on our side of the field for our partners. Quite a few times I saw an inbounder with more than 2 balls in their hands waiting for us to get out of the way.This is the most common way I saw it violated. Often times inbounders stopped/wouldn't even start taking balls out of the corral until the robot was clear, and sometimes the one holding extra balls handed them back. (Note they may not have realized everyone else also had 2.) Tracking penalties makes it pretty clear it's often not called--and definitely not at one per ball.

From the perspective of a field official, this is difficult to spot because it's not (as most people seem to be picturing it) an obvious, long-term issue of no or few balls returning to the field. Even a short time at the start of teleop can be a big deal though, because those extra balls end up making it to the other side. (I've seen webcasts with effective point swings of 12-18, sometimes enough to change match winner.) Plus, without the penalties or balls returned, the blocking robot has basically wasted that portion of the game.

(Please note that I'm not saying this will likely happen at IRI.)

[Jared Russell]

An alliance can legally maintain control of 17 balls in pursuit of a starvation strategy - 6 in the hands of in-bounders, 9 in the possession of robots, and two left on their alliance bridge. A perfectly legitimate strategy and one that we considered. This does suggest however that you will be outscored in the process of collecting these balls (6 unreturned.) The intent would be to rally with these balls when it is too late for your opponent to answer. Requires well timed and reliable inbounding of the 6 balls, quick and reliable acquisition by robots, and quick shooting with no or very few missed shots. Obviously a strategy only for an alliance with great confidence in their ability. Winning autonomous would improve one's position to attempt it.

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

[Travis Hoffman]

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

The more you put on there, the more likely the opposition will tend your bridge and accept the penalty to break up your strategy.

[Gdeaver]

OK, not much discussion. 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. My problem is as a mentor what do I tell my team. Do I work with our in-bounder to implement this strategy? Do I take the high road and instruct them to follow the rules to the letter even if it puts us in a disadvantaged position. Siri and jblay have hinted at the strategy. It goes deeper. I watched several matches have the out come changed by one alliance use this strategy and the other follow the rules and loose. It does change the game.
Now that that has been brought up I'll discuss another in-bounder rule violation that has become common. Most teams have treated the line in front of the in-bounder station as a line of death. How ever it does not take much of a line infraction to greatly increase the power and accuracy of an in bounder shot. I've noticed that as the season has progressed, in-bounders have more and more taken advantage of this and it has become quite common. So do I teach my in-bounder to start behind the line and take a step forward across the line and then rock back behind the line? Other teams do it or again do I take the high road? This one can only be caught by having a ref behind the wall. Try it some time to see how much of an advantage it is.
These 2 problems are because First over looked the number and placement of refs. Having 2 refs at the in-bounder station enforcing in-bounder play would take the game back to First's original intent. Ignoring it is the same as saying we don't care and condones these strategies.
What I don't want to happen is this burden placed on the current refs. Their plate is full with the field play. I don't want them taking their eyes off the field to worry about the in-bounder issue.
So IRI is coming up. How will the game be played?
I know this is a touchy subject, but I feel it needs to be brought out. Feel free to agree or disagree. Just my opinion.

[Brandon Holley]

I know this is a touchy subject, but I feel it needs to be brought out. Feel free to agree or disagree. Just my opinion.

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

-Brando

[Bjenks548]

I think we need to look at the intent of the rule to decide strategies. Breaking a rule on purpose is not always a bad thing, however breaking a rule with the intent of not geting caught is. Rules/pentalties are in place not to see them as an evil to avoid at all costs, but as a tradeoff. Example, last year if there was a tube we needed in the opponents lane and time was running out, go get it and take the -3 points and finish your logo. I personally will not employ a strategy with the intent of breaking the rules without getting caught and I hope others don't. If I'm beaten by this, at least I can hold my head high and know I played my best with the rules I was given.

[Gdeaver]

I have always taken the high road and made a great effort to maintain the ethical integrity of my business. I have been rewarded by a loyal customer base. Why do they hire me as opposed to many other companies. Because they feel they can "TRUST" my company to solve their problems fairly and ethically. Many of my competitors have no problem employing deceptive business and marketing practices. I continue to follow the high road. As a small company I consider it a competitive advantage and a survival strategy. How ever many large companies push the envelope of ethics and legality ever day. A large legal department is critical for them. Microsoft comes to mind. You can win by cheating intelligently. So how do we play the game at IRI?

[LeelandS]

So, here's my take.

I've taken a stance previously in that breaking the rules during the match (as long as it doesn't damage your opponents robot, is overly aggressive, etc.) is okay. It can provide a strategic advantage that can be just as much a part of the game as any other. In 2011, it was taking tubes from the opponent's lane. I advocated that strategy because it wasn't aggressive, and it was blatant and obvious. So there is one take on it.

On this particular strategy, I'd have to take an opposite stance on this matter. Yes, it's an applicable strategy, and yes, it's not overaggressive or damaging. But the problem I have with it is you're attempting to take advantage of a staffing issue. You're not blatantly breaking the rules in the game, you're trying to sneak a rule violation by the referees. And THAT I don't think is really fair, not just to the other teams, but to the referees who volunteered their time to learn these rules and are trying to enforce them to the best of their abilities. Imagine you were a referee. How would you feel if you found out teams have been blatantly breaking the rules just because they knew/thought you couldn't see it? I know I'd feel very disrespected and disappointed in the conduct of those team. But maybe that's just me.

In short, yeah, you may be able to get away with this strategy. But is it really a competitive advantage worth teaching your students that it's okay to cheat as long as you don't get caught?

Just my thoughts.

[JaneYoung]

I think one reason you aren't seeing a lot of discussion is because you are talking about IRI. When you talk about IRI, you are not only discussing the caliber of the referees but you are also discussing the caliber of the members of the planning committee and the emcees who will be running the show. (I can't help but giggle when I think about a certain emcee who has no problem letting folks know when they are messing with the rules and jeopardizing the fair play of the game.)

There are many people who are proud of, and protective of, the reputation of IRI. It has been built on years of hard work, achievement, and the pursuit of excellence. If that reputation is threatened, all of those people who are proud and protective of it - could potentially come down hard on those threatening it. I'm one of those people who is very proud because I know that the folks who are running, and helping to run the event, will do their very best to make sure the teams can play the game to their very best ability and the game will be played the best that it can be. They want to make sure everyone has a great time and they are very aware of the prestige that goes with participating in the event. They aren't going to mess with it.

You can discuss this but I don't see it as a big problem. If it is, I will be very surprised.

Jane

[IndySam]

FIRST did not add additional refs to watch the human actions because they expect teams to follow the rules and police themselves (this is straight from the horses mouth.)

To hear that a team or teams would deliberately violate these rules is absolutely duscusting to me.

[jvriezen]

The strategy is not to keep the balls for human player shots. The strategy is to gain control of most of the balls (hoarding), then score with them (with robots) late in the match when it is too late for your opponent to score with them again. Not promoting it as wise, just explaining the concept. Again it would take great confidence, execution, and timing.

The strategy can also be useful when you know your opposition plays a better tele-op game (higher points per ball acquired.) The more balls that cycle thru the more point differential they will accumulate for tele-op points. If you know you have a large enough lead after autonomous, or think that you can out score them in bridge points to make up the current deficit, then it may be to your advantage to 'slow down' tele-op where your opponents are able to out gun you, as the effect is minimized through starvation.

Shooting your possessed ball (going for 2pts or a lower % 3pt attempt) and turning the ball over to your opponent who has a higher shooting % is not a good idea when you are ahead ( or know you will be at end of game based on bridge success predictions.)

[Siri]

It drove me just as crazy as IndySam to hear it from the horse's mouth and watch the repeated violations during the season, but I have to agree with Jane that I would be surprised if it's an issue at IRI. I mean, it's IRI. It's not just the refs and the planning committee and the scary awesome MC, it's the teams. I have to believe that the IRI teams have already made the "high road" choice long ago. They certainly prove it every day. (Note that, at least in my humble opinion, missing many of the G31s described in this thread is not a reflection of referee caliber. I've mourned from afar as some absolutely excellent refs miss these calls on their own.)

Plus, you know, Paul rocks.


I'm more worried about next year's game setup given FIRST's ruling this year.

[Ed Law]

I don't know why this is a problem. Our team has been in matches where our alliance has been called for having too many balls and human player stepping over the line in a Michigan offseason event. You don't think think the refs at IRI will pay attention to these things especially after you bring this up.

If you know a team is doing this on purpose, get Paul to have a talk with them. That will take care of it.

[Gdeaver]

You don't think think the refs at IRI will pay attention to these things especially after you bring this up.
That's why I posted. Proactive as to reactive.

[smurfgirl]

I just wanted to say that I've reffed at three events this year and been to three others in different roles, and teams have definitely been penalized for hoarding the balls - I've called it at least a few times per event myself, and I've seen others do the same. The refs are watching for it. From what I've seen though, most people are making a good effort to get the balls back onto the field in a timely manner. These penalties have also decreased in frequency as the season has gone on and people have become more familiar with the rules.

[Jay O'Donnell]

I've been my team's human player for a majority of the season, and I have not once seen or thought about this strategy. Every other inbounder I've worked with has been adamant about not breaking this rule and returning balls to the field. However, holding the maximum of six balls has occasionally proven to be a viable strategy. Based on what others are saying here, it's clear that this has been a problem at some events. Whether this is strategy or just a lack of knowledge about how to be a human player doesn't matter, the balls should be returned to the field (assuming you are holding more than six) It seems to unethical to me to blatantly break a rule because you think you can get away with it. I hope this doesn't happen at IRI, but I think it can be handled by the refs and possibly any volunteers.

[JosephC]

I've been my team's human player for a majority of the season, and I have not once seen or thought about this strategy. Every other inbounder I've worked with has been adamant about not breaking this rule and returning balls to the field. However, holding the maximum of six balls has occasionally proven to be a viable strategy.

Likewise. To think that a inbounder would purposely break the rules astounds me. I know I've stepped over the line a few times without being called on it, but it was always accidental and I noticed after the fact was done, and would accept a penalty without argue. Never have I seen an alliance holding 7+ balls behind the wall, but I know firsthand multiple strategies that involve holding balls.

For example: There was one match against a team with an awesome intake system. They would cross the bump and steal any balls on the ground. Because if this, we withheld balls until they were needed to keep them from getting stolen. At one point we were forced to inbound balls, or else we would be holding too many.

Rules are there for a reason. If someone was to just go around breaking rules, especially if they are trying not to get caught, then you might as well make an overweight robot, or extend past your frame perimeter too far, or hold 4 balls in your robot during teleop. The list goes on and on.

My last point, FIRST is unlike any other sport because we are all gracious professionals. It's my personal belief that breaking rules, because you know you won't get caught, is not very gracious or professional. It also says a lot about someone's character if they'll do something only because they won't get punished for it.


My 2 cents.

[Siri]

I just wanted to say that I've reffed at three events this year and been to three others in different roles, and teams have definitely been penalized for hoarding the balls - I've called it at least a few times per event myself, and I've seen others do the same. The refs are watching for it. From what I've seen though, most people are making a good effort to get the balls back onto the field in a timely manner. These penalties have also decreased in frequency as the season has gone on and people have become more familiar with the rules.Please don't misunderstand us. It's definitely called. From 8 events this season, I've called it myself and had it called against and for my alliance before. Mostly from a ref- or a drive team's- eye view, it looks like you're/we're doing pretty well (not that it's always easy). Then you watch some bird's-eye webcasts and pay attention while you're waiting in queue... not so much. It's not that it's every event or every time, it's that it happens at all. Way more than it should (which is never).

Thank you to all the HPs who've noted they don't do this.

[jspatz1]

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]

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...

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.

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

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]

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]

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

But that might disrupt the Roomba that naps there.