San Diego: Tech Foul in Finals [Archive]

Squillo

08-03-2014, 21:56

I saw the last (second) finals match in the SD regional. The blue alliance won that match, and hence the regional (having already won F-1), because the red alliance got a tech foul that was announced as something like "human player deflecting opponent's ball with their ball". Could someone please explain? I thought a deflection was not a possession, so the human player didn't possess the opponent's ball. I didn't see what happened, so I can't judge it for myself.

Which rule was violated? Anyone know anything more about this 'game changing' foul?

If this happened the way I imagine, then it is clear that when a HP sees an opponent's ball headed for them, they'd better do anything possible to avoid touching it (with a hand or their own ball). But not step out of the box. Seems that could be difficult, but I intend to warn our HPs!

EricH

08-03-2014, 21:59

David8696

08-03-2014, 22:15

Please look at G32--that was called out on the webcast. The announcer also stated that the red ball was used by the human player to deflect the blue ball--which would indicate a definite violation of G32.

This is entirely separate from a robot Possessing a ball--Possession, in that sense, is a property that only Robots can have.

As a lead member of the strategy team of Team 2485, I can tell you exactly what transpired (or at least what we could gather from the video and a number of eyewitness accounts):

Our human player was attempting to inbound the ball to 987. When he threw the ball to the robot, it bounced away, and ended up effectively "trapping" the Blue Alliance's ball. This was ruled as in violation of G32—"Strategies employing TEAM member actions to deflect opponents’ BALLS are not allowed"—incurring a technical foul on our human player. Similar events had occurred earlier in the tournament, and had been uncalled.

Suffice it to say that we were exceedingly upset by this ruling; but at the same time, we recognize that once the refs determine something to be the case, that's kind of the way it goes. It's a tough, tough pill to swallow, and one we're definitely not convinced was necessary, but at least we'll get another chance in Vegas. We just wish the final outcome didn't have to be decided either way by a controversial call.

EDIT: Just to clarify, there was no intentional—and certainly no "strategic"—deflection, possession, or contact of any kind by our human player with the blue alliance's ball.

Jay O'Donnell

08-03-2014, 22:32

As a lead member of the strategy team of Team 2485, I can tell you exactly what transpired (or at least what we could gather from the video and a number of eyewitness accounts):

Our human player was attempting to inbound the ball to 987. When he threw the ball to the robot, it bounced out, effectively "trapping" the Blue Alliance's ball. This was ruled as in violation of G32—"Strategies employing TEAM member actions to deflect opponents’ BALLS are not allowed"—incurring a technical foul on our human player. Similar events had occurred earlier in the tournament, and had been uncalled.

Suffice it to say that we were exceedingly upset by this ruling; but at the same time, we recognize that once the refs determine something to be the case, that's kind of the way it goes. It's a tough, tough pill to swallow, and one we're definitely not convinced was necessary, but at least we'll get another chance in Vegas. We just wish the final outcome didn't have to be decided either way by a controversial call.

EDIT: Just to clarify, there was no intentional—and certainly no "strategic"—deflection, possession, or contact of any kind by our human player with the blue alliance's ball.

I hate seeing events end like this. I'd personally hate the ruling whether I was on the winning or losing side. I'd rather see the call made right, even if it made me lose. Glad to see your team being incredibly professional about a tough loss.

David8696

08-03-2014, 22:41

I hate seeing events end like this. I'd personally hate the ruling whether I was on the winning or losing side. I'd rather see the call made right, even if it made me lose. Glad to see your team being incredibly professional about a tough loss.

The W.A.R. Lords appreciate your sympathy. Again, while we're certainly extremely upset with the result of the call, we're almost more concerned with the fact that the scenario arose in the first place: that is, that a match, particularly one as crucial as the final, was decided either way by a controversial refereeing call. It seems ironic to me that a robotics competition would come down to human error, which is precisely what the field of robotics attempts to prevent... :(

Hayes92107

08-03-2014, 22:53

All who read this,

While the foul calling is somewhat subjective, this is a VERY difficult game to ref and yes, when you watch it knowing what is happening, your view is swayed by previous perceptions. Have someone impartial watch it after being explained the rules, and they would likely have come up with the same call 50% of the time.

Teams will learn from these lessons and apply them to future actions, just as pro athletes do every game.
Keep in mind these are not NFL refs who spend there lives getting to know their respective rules.

Sometimes the call goes your way, and sometimes it's against you. Just remember, winning is a minute goal of first, otherwise we would have high-paid refs as any professional sport, it's the journey that counts.

John Hayes
Mentor for the WARLords Team 2485

P.S. Based on my GoPro video, the ball was being inbounded to 2485 when 330 tried to pass our robot to get into scoring position and the ball bounced off the blue ball that was within the passing robot (incidental contact, ie bad luck)

DampRobot

09-03-2014, 00:07

Have someone impartial watch it after being explained the rules, and they would likely have come up with the same call 50% of the time.

Just saying, so will a coin flip.

I think the problem with this game isn't quite so much that it's difficult to ref (although it is), but that a refs mistakes can be so costly to the teams on the he field. Almost no teams can make up a 50 point deficit, especially against a good alliance. If a ref makes a mistake or what some would consider a bad call, it's essentially game over for any alliance which wasn't going to blow out the other alliance anyway.

Fouls exist to get people to play the game fairly. The current fouls seem to punish teams for stuff which may or may not be within their control. Imagine if tech fouls were 500 points. People wouldn't be any less likely to commit them. There's just no good reason for the fouls, especially tech fouls, to be this high.

Hayes92107

09-03-2014, 00:19

Like I said, bad luck.

Let this be a warning that when throwing in from HP, you better be going no where near the opposing alliance, just to be safe.

Squillo

09-03-2014, 01:18

OK, sorry about using the wrong terminology (re: possession) - you're right, that is for robots.

I guess what I was confused about was I didn't see, or hear any reference to, any "strategy" or "intentional" action, so I didn't think about G32 (which I thought required deliberate action). Since I didn't see any deliberate action (nor did I remember the ref using the word "strategy" or "intentionally" or '"deliberately" or anything similar), and didn't happen to hear the actual rule number (if it was called out), I thought the ref was referring to an accidental deflection (like the blue ball accidentally bounced off a red ball the HP was holding, getting ready to inbound). I guess that was what it was, but it happened AFTER the HP let go of the ball - not while s/he was holding it, getting ready to inbound. To me that seems even MORE off base, unless the HP deliberately threw the red ball toward the blue ball in an apparent attempt to move it. It is so hard to watch everything at once, but I didn't think I'd seen anything like that (or heard it called out during the match).

Anyway, having gotten it into my head (for the robots) that one team's ball accidentally bouncing off another's was OK, I was confused by the call. Now I see that it was apparently just a bad call. Bummer.

davidfv

09-03-2014, 01:26

[QUOTE=David8696;1355606]As a lead member of the strategy team of Team 2485, I can tell you exactly what transpired (or at least what we could gather from the video and a number of eyewitness accounts):

Is there video posted yet of this match?

David8696

09-03-2014, 01:32

twetherbee

09-03-2014, 01:40

orangemoore

09-03-2014, 01:47

Here is the video I recorded of that match. Tech foul in discussion occurs at about 2:30.

http://youtu.be/vp_kB8LRUg0

Congrats to 1266, 330, 4583, and 4486. 330's driving in the semi-finals and finals is among the best I have ever seen in first.
I have no intention of blaming anyone. I am posting what I think I see. I also have no idea what the outcome of that match was.

What happened was very odd. The way the ball was thrown was directly at the blue alliance robot. It could appear as both a poorly timed inbound to a robot up the field, or possibly a way to mess with the blue alliance robot.

aditya29

09-03-2014, 03:00

Here is the video I recorded of that match. Tech foul in discussion occurs at about 2:30.

http://youtu.be/vp_kB8LRUg0

Congrats to 1266, 330, 4583, and 4486. 330's driving in the semi-finals and finals is among the best I have ever seen in first.

I'd love to see 330's driving in the semifinals again. They really put on a clinic of how to get around defensive bots - hopefully that last semis match was recorded.

David8696

09-03-2014, 03:01

I have no intention of blaming anyone. I am posting what I think I see. I also have no idea what the outcome of that match was.

What happened was very odd. The way the ball was thrown was directly at the blue alliance robot. It could appear as both a poorly timed inbound to a robot up the field, or possibly a way to mess with the blue alliance robot.

The way I saw it is that the human player (knowing if we didn't score FAST, we were going to lose) tried to inbound it to 2485, who was moving in his direction, quickly and let them pick it up while it was bouncing. 330 drove into the path of this semi-desperation throw, but clearly the human player could never have thought the ball would be able to knock out 330's ball.

Another important note: The rule cited (G32) is worded "Strategies employing TEAM member actions to deflect opponents’ BALLS are not allowed." Two things seem to jump out at me here:
1) The fact that instead of G31 ("Strategies employing TEAM member actions to inhibit ROBOTS are not allowed."), they chose to invoke G32, implying that they felt that the human player's actions were against the blue ball, rather than the robot. Were the action interpreted as an attempt to mess with 330, they would have invoked G31 instead.
2) The term "strategies" is extremely important here. It means that unless the action is a clearly intentional attempt to deflect the opponent's balls (it could even be interpreted as requiring repetition), the foul should not be called. This has been shown in such situations as the Week 1 regional when a robot intentionally tipped another robot, but because it was clearly not their overall game strategy, but instead simply "taking an opportunity", it was considered not to be a foul, as G27 is worded "Strategies aimed at the destruction or inhibition of ROBOTS via attachment, damage, tipping, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not allowed."

It seems to me that this technical foul should not have been called, especially not to cause the end of a regional (we were down 1-0, and had we won there would have been another match).

BrendanB

09-03-2014, 03:08

Here is the video I recorded of that match. Tech foul in discussion occurs at about 2:30.

http://youtu.be/vp_kB8LRUg0

Congrats to 1266, 330, 4583, and 4486. 330's driving in the semi-finals and finals is among the best I have ever seen in first.

Honestly that is an extremely tough call I feel bad for the ref crew who had to deliberate over that one.

There is just so much about that play where you can call it both ways.

David8696

09-03-2014, 03:08

I also want to note that I am absolutely not trying to take anything away from our opponents. They played two unbelievable games, and as has been mentioned previously, the drive team of 330 should serve as an example for all aspiring FRC drivers. I just feel that the regional should not have been decided based on a single arguable call.

twetherbee

09-03-2014, 03:19

I'd love to see 330's driving in the semifinals again. They really put on a clinic of how to get around defensive bots - hopefully that last semis match was recorded.

1538 recorded every match with the "Clint Bolinger" setup (aka full field view via GoPro), except the finals matches. They were planning to post them to youtube this coming week. SF2-3 is one they have recorded.

Racer26

09-03-2014, 03:29

Tough call. Looks to me like HP wasn't aiming for 330 (and the Blue BALL within), but rather trying to get the Red BALL down field in a hurry and 330 happened to move into the path, but without being that HP, it would be tough to say what his intent was.

The fact that it was unsuccessful in causing 330 any trouble (the Blue BALL didn't even flinch in 330s grasp, and they were able to get a [failed] shot off before the end of the match) ought to be a part of the decision to call the foul.

Certainly strategies (even failed ones) of what is being alleged here ought to be punished with a Tech foul, but I have an awfully hard time seeing this as being an intentional strategy, at least when I'm only seeing this one video, which changes angle at an inopportune time for optimal viewing, and never really gets a good angle on the HP in question; perhaps the refs could see something that this video didn't capture.

brandon.cottrell

09-03-2014, 03:37

David8696

09-03-2014, 04:23

David8696

09-03-2014, 04:32

This should be live in about 7 minutes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSRw5Ck5oJ0

Edit: Video is now live.

Edit 2: The incident in question takes place at around 2:05 (I recommend watching a few seconds before the pass itself, as it seems to become apparent that 2485 was trying to move into position to take a human player pass).

sircedric4

09-03-2014, 07:25

A very similar thing happened at the Arkansas regional finals. Technical fouls called and deliberated on after the game was over and not in real time were levied on the blue alliance for both the last games. These technical fouls changed the results of the game.

This particular game puts too much control in the referee's hands with the size and human judgement aspect of the penalties. An honest mistake on the referee's part can literally cost an alliance an entire regional championship. This is not an isolated San Diego regional problem, it is systematic and showing up at other venues.

pigpenguin

09-03-2014, 07:27

Almost no teams can make up a 50 point deficit, especially against a good alliance. If a ref makes a mistake or what some would consider a bad call, it's essentially game over for any alliance which wasn't going to blow out the other alliance anyway.

Fouls exist to get people to play the game fairly. The current fouls seem to punish teams for stuff which may or may not be within their control. Imagine if tech fouls were 500 points. People wouldn't be any less likely to commit them. There's just no good reason for the fouls, especially tech fouls, to be this high.

I think this is the problem at the moment. The technical fouls are punishing teams way too much especially for what are, in most cases, accidents. However on the flip side if they are too small teams won't try to avoid them as much and possibly (although I know of no such teams) abuse these fouls... At the end of the day it sucks that this happens but game design is tricky and stuff happens. Although I would have loved to see one more round those final matches were intense.

DanielleSisk

09-03-2014, 09:26

Here is the logic I can see behind the foul being called:

It looks as though the human player is attempting to throw the ball to 2485 when it hits 330. BUT then 2485 never goes to retrieve the ball, they appear to play defense against 330 (as per the second video). 3250 actually ends picking up the ball in the last few seconds (as shown in the first video). This could lead the ref to believe that the ball was intentionally thrown at 330s robot and not intended for the following 2485 to inbound.

mathking

09-03-2014, 09:59

I watched both posted videos a bunch of times and it seems clear that the human player is trying to get his alliance the ball and should not have been a foul. But I will be honest when I watched the first posted one the first time (and mind you I could not see the human player) it looked like the ball was thrown at 330. So I understand how a referee could make the call. And not reverse it because they can't look at video. As quite a few posters have said, the high point value for inadvertent fouls is a problem. I think smaller point values would make for a better game. If you are really concerned with keeping play clean perhaps the point values ratchet up for multiple instances of the same infraction in the same match. One thing I think that would dramatically improve the game would be to have six scorekeepers, whose only job is to watch one team for possessions and scores. Then the referees could look just for fouls and not have a divided responsibility.

Karthik

09-03-2014, 11:32

wlaroche

09-03-2014, 13:42

Let me preface this by saying what an incredibly difficult job the referees have this season. They have too much to watch, and are working with sub-optimal input system. It would be difficult to find fault with any referee call this season, just because of the terrible position they've been put in by the written rules and Q&A.

Even if this was an intentional move, the fact that something so inconsequential was worth 50 points is mind boggling to me. From my vantage point, this seems completely accidental, and definitely not warranting a foul. I feel bad for both alliances here, the red alliance for having to lose due to a ridiculous penalty value, and the blue alliance for having their well earned victory being drawn into question. I also feel for the referees, who are in for a long season of being the focal point of match results. These overwhelming penalties for inconsequential actions are definitely marring Aerial Assist.

Glad to hear that others see what kind of job the referees have this year. It takes all of Thursday just to learn the tablets while having to learn how the game is going to be played. There are two different screens that can take a couple of seconds to navigate between just to enter fouls, then a couple of seconds to navigate back so the can enter the points accumulated. While navigating the screens your eyes are off the field and things happen. When we look up situations can look like penalties and they get called. But we all would do our best to help each other out to make sure the points were added though, the radios are well used during the match for this and for penalties.

This is the first time in my history with first that game was designed to be this rough. When standing 4 feet from a demo derby of robots beating each other up situations can look like a foul. Please be kind to your referees all the crashing and hard hitting can make intent and who initiates the contact really hard to figure out.

Not knowing how your regional was played by the human players, it looked like the ball was thrown with some force wether to their alliance robot or at the blue ball. In our regional the balls were barely making it on the field because they were thrown in so passively all weekend (they did not want the technical for passing the plane). So looking at how the ball was thrown and the the fact that the red robot playing strong defense for so long before the ball was thrown, and little to no actions to go and pick the ball up after the blue ball was thrown towards the goal, I could see why the referees said the red robot was not playing the ball thus throwing the ball at the blue robot. It looks like the red robot was coming in to intercept the blue robot and pin them against the wall to stop there movement while the ball was thrown in the direction of the the scuffle, I say this from a referees perspective who was standing 4 feet from a demo derby all weekend.

Johnny

09-03-2014, 15:52

On behalf of 1266, the alliance captain of the winning alliance, I'd like to apologize for the technical foul call. While we do accept it as a victory because it was still a very close game, we are a little offput because it sort of seems like we didn't really "win" it. I would have liked to see a 3rd match played, with a matchup like that you guys really deserved it.

I guess we will just have to hope that technical foul calls will be more refined by Las Vegas, and that we're more aware of what exactly was the foul and sooner. Let's keep in mind though that the refs are doing their best, and that we're fortunate to have dedicated people like that in FIRST.

Brandon spoke for our team. Our team doesn't like the idea of our win being questioned because it was a hard fought victory. Having to win a match "on account of a penalty" is never optimal, but it's just part of the game.

I've been involved in FRC for 10 years and have seen ref calls decide matches and lots questionable calls. I've watched the replay and was on the field when the call happened and I honestly can see why the ref could have made that call.

Picture the scenario; the game was close and the beach bots scoring that last ball could have put the blue alliance ahead, but as the beach bots are going to score the ref sees a red ball move across the field with some force hitting the beach bot robot and no attempt by the red team to grab the ball. Seconds later 330 shoots and misses.

This is probably what the referee saw. Intentional or not, we need to understand that this is a difficult call but it's understandable why it was made. 987 and 2485 were fierce competitors and I have great respect for both teams. 987 has been one of my favorite teams since I started frc and I have looked up to their organization ever since. 2485 has a special place for me because I remember when our original mentor and myself as a student helped your team get started in frc and vex. You guys have turned into such an amazing team! Team 1266 apologizes tremendously for having to win under these conditions. Having been around so long though, I accept that penalties are part of the game and I instruct all my students to be very careful with everything they do during a match, especially during elimination because the threat of game deciding penalty are always present.

We will be seeing 987 and 2485 again at the Vegas regional and our team is looking forward to it! Once again I'm sorry for our team having to win by technical foul, but props to our alliance partner team 330( my favorite team besides my own). Their driver was amazing and saved us quite a few times with his ability to weave through defenses and score in the high goal!

inquiryteacher

09-03-2014, 16:36

After seeing the match in question..... I have to say it was another great example of fouls ruining game play. An alliance bot was clearly in position to accept the pass. This is one of the subjective fouls which can be called as the ref sees it. IF he thinks it would likely a defensive strategy to win the game, it is likely he will call it. Regardless of contradictory supporting evidence.

magicmike

09-03-2014, 19:55

To me it looked like 2485 was playing defense on the Beachbots, not looking to receive a ball.

JB987

09-03-2014, 23:44

Let this outcome stand as a precautionary tale...it appears if your inbounders attempt to add any force to propell the ball outward toward their receiving robot anywhere away from the low goal they may incur a g32 call or even g31 should it make contact with an opposing ball or robot. Results from yesterday may continue to reinforce typical soft short toss into inbounders bots as a prevailing strategy. Unfortunately this means defenders jobs become easier as they know balls will almost always be inbounded next to the low goal. Are you willing to risk giving 50 pts to your opponent every time you in bound to a robot away from the low goal?

Keep in mind even one errant or intercepted inbound may apparently be percieved as a "strategy"...

Having said this I want to convey my congrats to our opponents. Unbelievably tough defense, great shooting and driving. Hats off to the whole alliance.

griggsy

10-03-2014, 03:09

I just wanted to drop my two cents in and hopefully provide some clarifying insights.

First, congratulations to the winning alliance, 330, 1266, 4583 and 4486. No matter what I (or anyone else, IMHO) may think of the final call, it can not be denied that the winning alliance earned their win. They had a remarkable and impressive rise through the eliminations. I deeply respect all the teams involved, and 1266, just FYI, you guys have a special place in my heart too. Our team would likely not even exist if not for the support provided by your team and 1538.

Lest I seem remiss, I want to thank our alliance members 987 and 3250 too for competing along side us and being so gracious even in defeat. It was an honor and a pleasure.

Following that, I want to thank the refs. They have a very hard job, and they are good people that strive to make these competitions fair and outstanding. While I may disagree with a call at times, I fully respect their calls and even often understand how in different shoes, an event can seem contrary to how I interpreted it.

I know my drive team well, and I can assure you all, that no matter how it may look in the video, it was certainly not the intent of our human player to disrupt 330 with the toss in. In fact, I think that was the first foul he has caused for the entire season. Furthermore, we always discourage our drive team from employing any kind of what we call "sweep the leg tactics" (for those of you that have not seen Karate Kid, I mean malicious or questionable intent tactics). Even so, I understand how in the heat of competition this event could have been perceived that way by the refs, and respect their ruling. Their job is exceedingly difficult this year. IMHO, in this year's game, they have been tasked with too much to do, and even so they are striving to make it all work. Truly commendable.

Finally, I have to say our team had a ton of fun at the San Diego Regional and was very fortunate at the competition. Thanks to all involved, especially all the volunteer staff and all the teams that helped make the event memorable. I look forward to seeing many of those same teams, and some I missed seeing at our regional this year, in Vegas.

brandon.cottrell

10-03-2014, 03:20

I know my drive team well, and I can assure you all, that no matter how it may look in the video, it was certainly not the intent of our human player to disrupt 330 with the toss in. In fact, I think that was the first foul he has caused for the entire season. Furthermore, we always discourage our drive team from employing any kind of what we call "sweep the leg tactics" (for those of you that have not seen Karate Kid, I mean malicious or questionable intent tactics).

I've met all of the drive team members of 2485 and I couldn't agree more. What I'm concerned with though is people perceiving the technical foul as an ungraciously professional act from 2485.

Also, I'm very happy with the responses that 987 and 2485 were giving. We were kind of concerned that people would say that the technical foul was a cheap win (it kind of was though) and would say that we shouldn't have won.

Also also,

and 1266, just FYI, you guys have a special place in my heart too.

Oh you guys :rolleyes:

CTHP

10-03-2014, 03:50

The judges and referees should have weighed available video evidence considering the importance of the final matches. I watched the YouTube video half a dozen times (at the crucial moments - took about 90 seconds to reach a conclusion) and it was clear that the RED ball was heading toward a RED alliance robot when #330 turned into the path of the RED ball. So if it was a 'strategic' move to inbound a ball to deflect an opponent’s ball tucked safely inside an opposing team robot then isn't it equally likely that #330 turned into the path of the RED ball in order to create the foul? Sure it is.

Do I believe that? Of course not! What we had here was a spirited match and given the situation neither the HP nor 330 were intentionally attempting to cause a foul. Had the ball been clearly over-thrown past all the RED robots to an open part of the field containing only a BLUE robot and its ball, then the refs have a 'strategic' foul to deal with. From what I understand, only a single referee saw the event and video evidence presented to the refs seconds after the match ended was not given due consideration.
I also agree with the assessment from Hayes92107: “Based on my GoPro video, the ball was being inbounded to 2485 when 330 tried to pass our robot to get into scoring position and the ball bounced off the blue ball that was within the passing robot”.

:confused:

TheMadCADer

10-03-2014, 05:03

An important thing to keep in mind when something like this comes up is the reason we have foul points. The foul points awarded should be directly related (though not necessarily equal) to the amount of harm done. Fouls exist to keep unfair play from changing match outcomes. Changing the outcome of a match is exactly the opposite of what they're intended to do!

Sure we can argue back and forth over whether the rules were violated or not, but there comes a point where you should question a rule that is causing undesired results. Rules are tools, if they aren't working, let's fix them.

Hjelstrom

10-03-2014, 07:18

I know my drive team well, and I can assure you all, that no matter how it may look in the video, it was certainly not the intent of our human player to disrupt 330 with the toss in. In fact, I think that was the first foul he has caused for the entire season.

I remember watching one of 2485's last qualifying matches and saw their human player use the same type of pass (long pass with some backspin) when their robot was across the field from him. At the time another mentor and I even commented to each other on how good of a human player he was (very careful on the truss catches too).

The match was almost over, our robots couldn't reach the loading spot, and he was trying to quickly get the ball back in play. He shouldn't feel bad about this play in any way.

ToddF

10-03-2014, 08:52

There seem to be two questions being debated.
1) Was the foul called correctly? I'll pass on that question.
2) Is 50 points an excessive penalty for this penalty? No, it's not. Every year very smart people analyze the game looking for strategies of play that provide a net benefit. There are CD threads created where people debate whether the benefit of intentionally committing a foul outweigh the cost of the penalty points. If a ball has three assists on it, and a robot attempts a high goal score with that ball, it is potentially worth 40 points. If a human player throws a 2nd ball that interferes with the first, and prevents those 40 points from being scored, that's a benefit of 40 points. To dissuade this behavior, the associated penalty MUST be greater. Otherwise, the cost/benefit analysis shows that it is actually beneficial to throw balls at certain high goal shots to prevent them from being scored. Yes, there is a whole question of whether this behavior is GP. But, it has been persuasively argued by Chairman's award winning teams (the ones we are supposed to look up to) that game play other than what the game committee intended (scoring into opposite alliance's goals, for example) is smart rather than non-GP.

Add in the fact that referees are overworked and miss penalty calls all the time, and you have teams which may decide that committing this sort of foul is worth it EVEN IF the penalty is 50 points. It was against the rules in logomotion for human players to throw tubes to prevent robots from hanging. But there were teams that did it. Teams calculated that for certain situations, the risk of getting called for the foul was low enough and the benefit in points denied vs the cost in penalty points made committing the foul a beneficial strategy. Note that people in this thread are arguing that an action has to be performed TWICE before it becomes a "strategy". The flip side implication is that the first foul is "free". To discourage this type of game play, penalty point values MUST be high enough so it's just not worth it.

tanmaker

10-03-2014, 09:59

Just want to add my 0.014490 euros to the discussion of the call itself. Let it be known that I wasn't a ref there, or know any of the teams involved.

If this same exact thing occurred at my regional, I can honestly say I would have called the foul almost the same way. I would have called a G31 instead of a G32, that's my only change.

Watching the replay, it looks to me like the red robot is playing defense while the human player is trying to inbound the ball. Couple that with the very hard throw from the HP, and it looks even more like a strategy to inhibit the robot.

Keep in mind that referees see the actions of the robots, and don't know what the drivers' intents are. So while you may not be doing something to commit a foul on purpose, if it looks like you are, then a penalty will be called.

mkausas

10-03-2014, 12:34

What is hardest for me is that many other obvious fouls occurred and were not called or even considered after the match had ended.

Within the first 30 seconds of the match our belt, which drives our intake rollers, was snapped off due to 330's intake being extended. This was obviously unintentional yet it caused us to not be able to pick up off of the ground for the rest of the match. No foul was called.

Image of when 330's intake snapped our belt:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1LWUtR8n9WIckwxMG9FN3I0NXc/edit

Image of our belt dragging on the ground:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1LWUtR8n9WILXB3OFZNWlRjR28/edit?usp=sharing

Later in the match 1266 was heavy defense on 987; however, they drove up onto 987 for a solid 4-5 seconds making obvious contact inside their frame perimeter.

Image of 1266 on top of 987:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1LWUtR8n9WIUUNEdEpQMEhRWGc/edit?usp=sharing

Both cases were protrusions into other robot's frame perimeters and one caused major damage to our robot causing us not be able to score for the rest of the match. When we went to the question box after the match with video evidence of what had happened we were told that the match score would not be reconsidered. It just confuses me how in such an important match the refs made such a controversial call yet didn't make any calls on two such obvious fouls...

I only post this in order to provide feedback to refs and any FIRST employees that may read this response. As my teammates have already said, congrats to the winning alliance.

TheMadCADer

10-03-2014, 17:42

Image of when 330's intake snapped our belt:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1LWUtR8n9WIckwxMG9FN3I0NXc/edit

Image of our belt dragging on the ground:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1LWUtR8n9WILXB3OFZNWlRjR28/edit?usp=sharing

Image of 1266 on top of 987:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1LWUtR8n9WIUUNEdEpQMEhRWGc/edit?usp=sharing

Just as a heads up, I couldn't get any of those images to load. Maybe try either uploading them to Chief as an attachment or hosting them on something like Imgur.

Dave McLaughlin

10-03-2014, 18:09

All of the images loaded find for me, perhaps you're behind a firewall or something?

David8696

10-03-2014, 18:41

They worked for me too.

Jacob Conway

10-03-2014, 18:45

Image of when 330's intake snapped our belt:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1LWUtR8n9WIckwxMG9FN3I0NXc/edit

Image of our belt dragging on the ground:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1LWUtR8n9WILXB3OFZNWlRjR28/edit?usp=sharing

Image of 1266 on top of 987:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1LWUtR8n9WIUUNEdEpQMEhRWGc/edit?usp=sharing

They aren't loading for me either.

GaryVoshol

10-03-2014, 20:18

The judges and referees should have weighed available video evidence considering the importance of the final matches.
The judges have nothing to do with it. And the referees are prohibited from looking at videos (section 5.5.3).

Steven Donow

10-03-2014, 20:27

Image of when 330's intake snapped our belt:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B1LWUtR8n9WIckwxMG9FN3I0NXc/edit

Image of our belt dragging on the ground:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1LWUtR8n9WILXB3OFZNWlRjR28/edit?usp=sharing

Later in the match 1266 was heavy defense on 987; however, they drove up onto 987 for a solid 4-5 seconds making obvious contact inside their frame perimeter.

Image of 1266 on top of 987:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1LWUtR8n9WIUUNEdEpQMEhRWGc/edit?usp=sharing

They loaded for me. My opinion of this is an unfortunate truth of the reffing process: if a ref doesn't actually see 330's intake in there and physically snapping the belt, then how can they be certain that that's why the belt broke? As I did earlier in this thread (or another thread, I don't remember...), I'm simply playing the necessary devil's advocate in this discussion and am making no accusations whatsoever. We had this come into question at Mt. Olive, and unfortunately, since the ref didn't actually see the damage occur, it can't be called. Obviously, I can't speak for the refs at San Diego, but I empathize with them in that frame perimeter damage is one of the toughest things to call.

TheMadCADer

10-03-2014, 21:35

All of the images loaded find for me, perhaps you're behind a firewall or something?

No firewall, about as plain of a home connection as possible.

Google Drive, Dropbox, etc. are all notorious for doing exactly this. They're great for sharing larges files between a small group of people, but for public sharing let's please try to use something functional.

ThunderChief

14-03-2014, 21:38

I have just posted another video of the Final-2 match at the San Diego Regional with a different angle. There is a clear view of the Human Player starting at 2:15 running from the freshly lit pedestral with the red ball. Then he hesitates at the corner like he his checking with the drivers. Then the infamous throw down the field. Interestingly, I don't see any referee waving a flag following that.
Close to the start of the match, at :28 you can clearly see 2485 spinning around. Then you can see what they say is their "belt, which drives our intake rollers, was snapped off" coming off. As they move away, the belt appears on the carpet and I zoom in on it at :32. (That blue blur is the BeachBots schooling everyone on how to drive in the Finals.) :)
The link to YouTube is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNvJydgBokU

RallyJeff

14-03-2014, 23:17

Both cases were protrusions into other robot's frame perimeters and one caused major damage to our robot causing us not be able to score for the rest of the match. When we went to the question box after the match with video evidence of what had happened we were told that the match score would not be reconsidered. It just confuses me how in such an important match the refs made such a controversial call yet didn't make any calls on two such obvious fouls...
Are they obvious? Not all protrusions into an opposing robot's frame perimeter are fouls.

With the March 4th game update, G28 changed: it now prohibits initiating deliberate or damaging contact inside the frame perimeter of an opposing robot. If "the actions of the damaged robot are the catalyst for the damage", there's no foul.

I wasn't at this match, so I can't say whether this is the case here. I'm just throwing it out as something to consider.

sammas121

16-03-2014, 01:28

We just got back from the Utah regional and the finals went about the same for us there as well. We were picked as a defensive robot on a strong alliance, (although we were seeded 5th we breezed through our quarter finals) and as such ran into a few difficulties. Right when our round was about to start our laptop had a blue screen of death, as we were walking out onto the field. We quickly rebooted the laptop (thats how we had fixed it earlier). When the laptop was rebooting they started announcing the teams and asked us if we were ready to compete so we yelled no! and made an "x" with our arms. The Technical Advisor then came and checked to see if we were almost ready and when he turned around one of the other refs on the sidelines told us we had to step behind the playing line so the match could start. Because the laptop couldnt finish rebooting we lost (because we were defense). We went and talked to the head ref and he said that we should have stayed in front of the line to distinctively demonstrate that we werent ready. (violating the other ref who told us we had to step behind the line) he also said that he had no recollection of us telling them that we werent ready, and when we pointed out that the Tech advisor had seen us and even come over he said that because we did step back he assumed we were ready for the match. During the next match of the semis another robot on our alliance got hit hard enough to crack the lexan ( inside of their frame so it should have been a technical which would have won it for us) when we went to the referee and showed him the lexan was cracked he looked at us and said "do you really want to do this" and then proceeded to say that because he had no recollection of the hit he couldnt call it a technical. When we then pointed out that it was cracked he said that he did not trust our honor system and that we may have just cracked the lexan earlier and were only showing it now. While I do appreciate the refs and their volunteer time, i wonder what we shouldve done in that situation. We have always been taught to follow the refs and so it was rather confusing when we were told we should have disobeyed the ref (by staying over the line, which couldve resulted in a technical). Also it was confusing to us when the lexan cracked because before when that problem happened they told us we had to leave the robot on the field and show the refs, so when we finally did this they did nothing. Your thoughts??

tanmaker

16-03-2014, 12:17

...Right when our round was about to start our laptop had a blue screen of death, as we were walking out onto the field. We quickly rebooted the laptop (thats how we had fixed it earlier). When the laptop was rebooting they started announcing the teams and asked us if we were ready to compete so we yelled no! and made an "x" with our arms. The Technical Advisor then came and checked to see if we were almost ready and when he turned around one of the other refs on the sidelines told us we had to step behind the playing line so the match could start. Because the laptop couldnt finish rebooting we lost (because we were defense).

It sounds to me like there was a major breakdown in communication between you, the FTA, the head ref, the scoring table, and the emcee. The FTA should have signaled to the scoring table not to start the match. The head ref should have seen the FTA at your driver station, and known not to start. You should have been pounding on the window to get the head ref and emcee's attention to not start. The head ref and FTA should have had a better channel to communicate with each other. And finally, the emcee should have been paying attention to the FTA, head ref, and scoring table to know when it's ok to start.

So there are quite a few problems here, but know that there were actions you could have taken to prevent the problems.

During the next match of the semis another robot on our alliance got hit hard enough to crack the lexan...when we went to the referee and showed him the lexan was cracked he looked at us and said...that because he had no recollection of the hit he couldnt call it a technical.

You didn't state whether the opponent was inside your frame perimeter causing the damage, or if it was just a really hard bumper-to-bumper hit. But no matter, if a referee didn't see it happen, they can't call it. Bringing a damaged part of your robot to the question box won't help you get a call. Like I said, if we didn't see it, we can't call it, and we have no way of knowing if that part you brought happened in the last match, or one that you keep on your cart for such situations. I know that's not what you wanted to hear, but the referee not calling it after the match was the correct thing to do.