View Full Version : 2 v 3 in Dallas
g_sawchuk
28-02-2015, 19:04
You said it. They just made 3802 sit on the sidelines, and got 162 points. People are really starting to RUSH, including the elite. Lots of stacks toppling over.
We were watching this when we all slowly noticed it. It seems kind of ungp in a way if 148 just told them not to put their bot on the field.
Edit: Apparently the third robot was making modifications. I totally don't think that this is unGP the. My wording also probably confused some people.
MrTechCenter
28-02-2015, 19:07
It's too crowded in elims with 3 robots on the field and stacks that high. If anything, I hope this makes the GDC realize some things about this game...
I agree. I don't think it's GP. Even if they just sat there, or undid the upside down totes, that would be better than leaving them on the sideline.
MrTechCenter
28-02-2015, 19:09
This doesn't have to happen at later regionals. Simple rule update: You must field all 3 robots during eliminations.
g_sawchuk
28-02-2015, 19:09
It is un-GP, but what could they really do? I suppose they could stay in the landfill and make stacks, but not much room for it. Not 148's fault, mainly the GDC's fault.
George Nishimura
28-02-2015, 19:16
Please don't point fingers at or accuse teams, directly or indirectly, with incomplete information. 3802 (*and/or 2613) could be broken, or elected to not play themselves.
The GDC also can't really enforce active participation of three robots, only incentivize it.
EDIT: asterisk
Kyler Hagler
28-02-2015, 19:19
Their third robot 3802 was working on a step can grabber and was making some modifications... I wouldn't jump to conclusions. It only makes you look bad.
purple_turtle
28-02-2015, 19:20
Please don't point fingers at or accuse teams, directly or indirectly, with incomplete information. 3802 could be broken, or elected to not play themselves.
The GDC also can't really enforce active participation of three robots, only incentivize it.
Pointing out that 118's alliance also elected to play with only two robots in their first match, if memory serves correctly.
The alliance of 148, 987, and 3802 do intend to compete with all three robots on the field as soon as 3802 is up and running.
MrTechCenter
28-02-2015, 19:29
Pointing out that 118's alliance also elected to play with only two robots in their first match, if memory serves correctly.
The alliance of 148, 987, and 3802 do intend to compete with all three robots on the field as soon as 3802 is up and running.
According to the livestream, 118's alliance's third robot was supposed to be on the field for their second quarterfinal match, but didn't make it on time.
btcshields6
28-02-2015, 19:35
Looks like 3802 is coming in on this match.
good to see full alliance
btcshields6
28-02-2015, 19:39
High Rollers 987 actually just sat this match out....Comm issues. Interesting. They're still on top, but what if that happens in finals?
Tyler2517
28-02-2015, 19:39
good to see full alliance
I am not sure that match counts either....
staplemonx
28-02-2015, 19:40
Should this thread be 1 vs 3?
1v3 987 disabled as not set in time, 148 not on field in time.... semi 4
MariOlsen
28-02-2015, 20:16
Should this thread be 1 vs 3?
Wow, and you said that even before SF 3 happened!
evand4567
28-02-2015, 20:18
Does anyone know what specifically happened to make it a 1v3? It would stink if an alliance as good as #1 lost for this.
MariOlsen
28-02-2015, 20:19
1v3 987 disabled 148 not on field in time.... semi 4
118 and 2613 didn't even make it to the field for semi 3. 624 still managed 95 points by themselves though.
eddie12390
28-02-2015, 20:26
We were watching this when we all slowly noticed it. It seems kind of ungp in a way if 148 just told them not to put their bot on the field.
I seriously doubt that 148 (or any high-caliber team, for that matter) would ever tell another team to not put their robot in the field.
BBray_T1296
28-02-2015, 20:26
Does anyone know what specifically happened to make it a 1v3? It would stink if an alliance as good as #1 lost for this.
As ruled:
148 didnt make the field in time.
987 took more than 60 seconds to set up.
Timeout wasn't called soon enough.
Sperkowsky
28-02-2015, 20:27
edit- works on my laptop
High Rollers 987 actually just sat this match out....Comm issues. Interesting. They're still on top, but what if that happens in finals?
1v3 987 disabled as not set in time, 148 not on field in time.... semi 4
1v3 in 2 straight semis
118 and 2613 didn't even make it to the field for semi 3. 624 still managed 95 points by themselves though.
Are the field crew being more strict with match times and setup times than they were earlier in the event.
It's very unusual to have this many teams missing their matches in eliminations.
If 987 had a problem with setting up in one minute, wouldn't it have been discovered before semi-finals.
Can anyone who's there chime in? Can't tell much from the stream.
BBray_T1296
28-02-2015, 20:28
I seriously doubt that 148 (or any high-caliber team, for that matter) would ever tell another team to not put their robot in the field.
They had the robot sidelined because they were manufacturing a 2 can grabber. Nothing ungp.
DohertyBilly
28-02-2015, 20:28
1v3 987 disabled as not set in time, 148 not on field in time.... semi 4
The rule says "significant or repeated delays". Is 987 really taking that long to set up? I wouldn't imagine so...
Dunngeon
28-02-2015, 20:36
I wonder if it has anything to do with the very extended nature of this event. Since Dallas is going so late, the refs may be trying to ensure the event concludes as quickly as possible...
Still would like to see things enforced uniformly, just so that no one has any surprises in playoffs.
Nuttyman54
28-02-2015, 21:06
I wonder if it has anything to do with the very extended nature of this event. Since Dallas is going so late, the refs may be trying to ensure the event concludes as quickly as possible...
Still would like to see things enforced uniformly, just so that no one has any surprises in playoffs.
Consistent enforcement would be great. At PNW Auburn Teams were asked to not revert robots to transport config in playoffs to speed up match turnaround. The teams were not taking over 60 seconds, but the field crew wanted to move faster. They started requesting this on Friday night when we were 2 hours behind
Jacob Bendicksen
28-02-2015, 21:12
Consistent enforcement would be great. At PNW Auburn Teams were asked to not revert robots to transport config in playoffs to speed up match turnaround. The teams were not taking over 60 seconds, but the field crew wanted to move faster. They started requesting this on Friday night when we were 2 hours behind
The refs and field crew at PNW Oregon City pretty much said 'if it's safe, don't worry about transport config' the entire time, including quals and playoffs. We were about 2 hours behind on Friday even with that, though...
Rypsnort
28-02-2015, 21:28
It looks like 118 and 624 have been playing with only two robots during finals. Whats up with that. 2613 is now on the field for the last match.
Jay O'Donnell
28-02-2015, 21:29
Seems like things were much stricter at Dallas than they were at Granite State. Teams were taking their time with setting up, and everyone was given more than 60 seconds it seemed.
Richard Wallace
28-02-2015, 21:31
It looks like 118 and 624 have been playing with only two robots during finals. Whats up with that. 2613 is now on the field for the last match.Looks like all six bots are on the field for the final match. :)
Looks like all six bots are on the field for the final match. :)
And yet its still 2v2
Really sad to see 987 getting absolutely wrecked by these elims decisions. Really a shame to not see them get to play for some reason or another.
eddie12390
28-02-2015, 21:39
And yet its still 2v2
It ended up being 1v2 given that 987 was disabled for breaking the height restriction.
It ended up being 1v2 given that 987 was disabled for breaking the height restriction.
Wasnt the 3rd bot on that alliance working?
MrTechCenter
28-02-2015, 21:40
It ended up being 1v2 given that 987 was disabled for breaking the height restriction.
Blue still had two alliance members active. 2v2
DohertyBilly
28-02-2015, 21:43
G7 When placed on the FIELD for a MATCH, each ROBOT must be:
A. in compliance with all ROBOT rules, i.e. it has passed Inspection. For exceptions regarding Practice MATCHES, see Section 5.2 – Practice MATCHES.
B. fully supported by the floor, SCORING PLATFORM, and/or SCORING PLATFORM ramps on their ALLIANCE’S side of the
FIELD, and
C. completely outside of their AUTO ZONE and LANDFILL ZONE.
VIOLATION: If fix is a quick remedy, the MATCH won’t start until all requirements are met. If it is not a quick remedy the offending
ROBOT will be DISABLED and at the discretion of the Head REFEREE must be re-Inspected.
Nowhere in the pre-match rules does it state anything about being above the height limit, that is assumed to be part of G7-A, and is the responsibility of the inspectors. If 987 passed inspection with that add on, then there is no reason for them to be disabled, and if they didn't pass inspection there is no reason they would have gone through with that auto...what just happened?
Did they measure that using 1678's cut up tape measures.
It's the most absurd thing to try and watch any matches as an alumni and try to explain robotics to friends/family to show them why I enjoy the sport if the refs decide matches before they start.
I'm sure there's an explaination but as a viewer I'm pretty disappointed.
G7 When placed on the FIELD for a MATCH, each ROBOT must be:
A. in compliance with all ROBOT rules, i.e. it has passed Inspection. For exceptions regarding Practice MATCHES, see Section 5.2 – Practice MATCHES.
B. fully supported by the floor, SCORING PLATFORM, and/or SCORING PLATFORM ramps on their ALLIANCE’S side of the
FIELD, and
C. completely outside of their AUTO ZONE and LANDFILL ZONE.
VIOLATION: If fix is a quick remedy, the MATCH won’t start until all requirements are met. If it is not a quick remedy the offending
ROBOT will be DISABLED and at the discretion of the Head REFEREE must be re-Inspected.
Nowhere in the pre-match rules does it state anything about being above the height limit, that is assumed to be part of G7-A, and is the responsibility of the inspectors. If 987 passed inspection with that add on, then there is no reason for them to be disabled, and if they didn't pass inspection there is no reason they would have gone through with that auto...what just happened?
Doesnt the robot rules state a max height?
XaulZan11
28-02-2015, 21:46
For those who watched Dallas, did 2613 ever get the RC bins from the step in auto? If not, that is a brilliant move by that alliance to get 987 to forgo those 28 auto points (and eventually be deemed illegal).
For those who watched Dallas, did 2613 ever get the RC bins from the step in auto? If not, that is a brilliant move by that alliance to get 987 to forgo those 28 auto points (and eventually be deemed illegal).
From what I saw they never did.
987 and 148 on the Red Alliance were robbed. How is it possible the 987 was now 'too tall' and disabled in the final game-deciding match?
The refs and field crew at PNW Oregon City pretty much said 'if it's safe, don't worry about transport config' the entire time, including quals and playoffs. We were about 2 hours behind on Friday even with that, though...
What even are rules if it's decided to not follow them?
G7 When placed on the FIELD for a MATCH, each ROBOT must be:
A. in compliance with all ROBOT rules, i.e. it has passed Inspection. For exceptions regarding Practice MATCHES, see Section 5.2 – Practice MATCHES.
B. fully supported by the floor, SCORING PLATFORM, and/or SCORING PLATFORM ramps on their ALLIANCE’S side of the
FIELD, and
C. completely outside of their AUTO ZONE and LANDFILL ZONE.
VIOLATION: If fix is a quick remedy, the MATCH won’t start until all requirements are met. If it is not a quick remedy the offending
ROBOT will be DISABLED and at the discretion of the Head REFEREE must be re-Inspected.
Nowhere in the pre-match rules does it state anything about being above the height limit, that is assumed to be part of G7-A, and is the responsibility of the inspectors. If 987 passed inspection with that add on, then there is no reason for them to be disabled, and if they didn't pass inspection there is no reason they would have gone through with that auto...what just happened?
It's plausible that they passed inspection but something got bent or moved from it's normal configuration, resulting in being out of spec.
It's not worth speculating until someone from 987 can explain what happened.
Very unfortunate that so many eliminations matches featured no shows or disabled robots due to teams supposedly taking too long to setup, or not being on the field in time.
I've seen lots of robots show up slightly late to the field and the field staff generally does everything they can to let them play. We have heard a little bit from people at the event and it sounds like the referees are doing everything they can to keep teams from playing, which is a shame for all involved.
DohertyBilly
28-02-2015, 21:50
Doesnt the robot rules state a max height?
The transport configuration is checked during inspection, and that has the same max height. 987 wouldn't overlook the limit if they added the grabbers on on the field.
EDIT: I agree with Cory. No way to know until someone in the know says something. But I'm still disappointed that we have such a controversial decision in week one...
The transport configuration is checked during inspection, and that has the same max height. 987 wouldn't overlook that if they added that on on the field.
No, but isnt their a max height limit for a match as well?
No, but isnt their a max height limit for a match as well?
78" is max height everywhere
MariOlsen
28-02-2015, 21:53
For those who watched Dallas, did 2613 ever get the RC bins from the step in auto? If not, that is a brilliant move by that alliance to get 987 to forgo those 28 auto points (and eventually be deemed illegal).
2613 was disabled for breaking the plane of the landfill zone. So both of the teams going for a can grab were disabled.
PayneTrain
28-02-2015, 21:53
Week 1 Checklist
☑Incompetent Teams
☑Referees that don't know the rules
☑Seemingly intentionally vague rules and relative Q&A predictably turning out poorly for everyone
☑Events almost half a day behind schedule
☑Consistent rulings within events are wishful thinking, consistent rulings between events a forlorn hope
☑Obvious consequences related to schedule issue predictably turning out poorly
☑Controversial and likely embarrassing and borderline irresponsible rulings in eliminations
2015 bonuses:
☑Judges not aware of lack of feedback or mentor allowance changes regarding chairman's award
☑Key event volunteers unable to explain new scoring and slim format to audience
Thanks for showing up to Week 1, brothers and sisters. See you at Week 1 next year (when hell freezes over/stop build day ends, whichever comes first)
For those who watched Dallas, did 2613 ever get the RC bins from the step in auto? If not, that is a brilliant move by that alliance to get 987 to forgo those 28 auto points (and eventually be deemed illegal).
No
AlexanderTheOK
28-02-2015, 21:57
I can understand how this happens legally. If 987 made modifications, didn't get reinspected, and tried to play that way, they would be rightfully disabled under the rules.
I can't however for the life of me imagine that 987 would have simply not gotten inspected before their last match.
I can understand how this happens legally. If 987 made modifications, didn't get reinspected, and tried to play that way, they would be rightfully disabled under the rules.
I can't however for the life of me imagine that 987 would have simply not gotten inspected before their last match.
They removed attachment (was useless) and still got called. They did not reinspect.
MrTechCenter
28-02-2015, 21:59
I think it's kind of ridiculous that breaking the plane of the landfill zone is an automatic disable without giving the team a chance to fix it. How hard is it to let the team on the field for 10 seconds to move their robot back a couple of inches?
DohertyBilly
28-02-2015, 22:01
I think it's kind of ridiculous that breaking the plane of the landfill zone is an automatic disable without giving the team a chance to fix it. How hard is it to let the team on the field for 10 seconds to move their robot back a couple of inches?
G7 When placed on the FIELD for a MATCH, each ROBOT must be:
C. completely outside of their AUTO ZONE and LANDFILL ZONE
VIOLATION: If fix is a quick remedy, the MATCH won’t start until all requirements are met...
It shouldn't be very hard at all, given that that's what the rules say to do...
I think it's kind of ridiculous that breaking the plane of the landfill zone is an automatic disable without giving the team a chance to fix it. How hard is it to let the team on the field for 10 seconds to move their robot back a couple of inches?
Personally I think its ridiculous teams can pre-hook RC's so see this as good rule not to break the plane.
I can understand how this happens legally. If 987 made modifications, didn't get reinspected, and tried to play that way, they would be rightfully disabled under the rules.
I can't however for the life of me imagine that 987 would have simply not gotten inspected before their last match.
Our robot hasn't been modified at all since we were inspected on thursday and measured in the state that got us disabled in final match 3.
DanielPlotas
28-02-2015, 22:05
I think it's kind of ridiculous that breaking the plane of the landfill zone is an automatic disable without giving the team a chance to fix it. How hard is it to let the team on the field for 10 seconds to move their robot back a couple of inches?
I can somewhat understand disabling in a qualification match to keep things going, but in a playoff match, especially the final match, the referees should be trying to get as many robots able to play as possible.
G7 When placed on the FIELD for a MATCH, each ROBOT must be:
C. completely outside of their AUTO ZONE and LANDFILL ZONE
VIOLATION: If fix is a quick remedy, the MATCH won’t start until all requirements are met...
It shouldn't be very hard at all, given that that's what the rules say to do...
VIOLATION: If fix is a quick remedy, the MATCH won’t start until all requirements are met. If it is not a quick remedy the offending
ROBOT will be DISABLED and at the discretion of the Head REFEREE must be re-Inspected.
"Quick" is relative, so it's possible the refs told them their arms were too tall, and then 987 couldn't remove them fast enough.
I can somewhat understand disabling in a qualification match to keep things going, but in a playoff match, especially the final match, the referees should be trying to get as many robots able to play as possible.
So the rules should be disregarded because its the finals?
Sure. Find out that the robot is too tall early on Wednesday inspections and keep that fact in your back-pocket until you need to use it.
Street_dreamZ
28-02-2015, 22:13
The too-high rollers!
In all seriousness, I find it ridiculous that the refs ruled them too tall. Why were they too tall during the last match, but not too tall for any other matches, when nothing changed? Does consistency not matter at all?
VIOLATION: If fix is a quick remedy, the MATCH won’t start until all requirements are met. If it is not a quick remedy the offending
ROBOT will be DISABLED and at the discretion of the Head REFEREE must be re-Inspected.
"Quick" is relative, so it's possible the refs told them their arms were too tall, and then 987 couldn't remove them fast enough.
They ruled that our our arms were illegal in their extended state because the outside corner was above 78" (even though at inspection they were deemed legal) getting under what they claimed to be legal height would have been as simple as pressing a button on the solenoid.
DanielPlotas
28-02-2015, 22:15
So the rules should be disregarded because its the finals?
My argument is quite the opposite. As others have quoted, a quick fix remedy should be allowed, but I can somewhat understand the referees disabling a robot during qualifications, to keep on pace.
Sure. Find out that the robot is too tall early on Wednesday inspections and keep that fact in your back-pocket until you need to use it.
Hold on there. Let's try to keep any accusations to ourselves unless we have actual evidence. I'm just as disappointed with the ruling as you are, but we need to keep our heads level.
My argument is quite the opposite. As others have quoted, a quick fix remedy should be allowed, but I can somewhat understand the referees disabling a robot during qualifications, to keep on pace.
So then a "quick fix" should only be allowed in the finals?
Rules should be the same the entire regional. In this instance, I guess the refs ruled the fix to not be "quick".
The too-high rollers!
In all seriousness, I find it ridiculous that the refs ruled them too tall. Why were they too tall during the last match, but not too tall for any other matches, when nothing changed? Does consistency not matter at all?
It's certainly possible they were too tall in only the final match, due to any number of factors, while having passed inspection at the correct height.
They may just have needed to tweak something to bring the robot back within height...but they obviously weren't given that chance.
DohertyBilly
28-02-2015, 22:21
VIOLATION: If fix is a quick remedy, the MATCH won’t start until all requirements are met. If it is not a quick remedy the offending
ROBOT will be DISABLED and at the discretion of the Head REFEREE must be re-Inspected.
"Quick" is relative, so it's possible the refs told them their arms were too tall, and then 987 couldn't remove them fast enough.
Actually when I said that, I was quoting someone who was referencing 2613 being disabled for being over the landfill. That is unarguably a quick fix as intended by the rules. I stand by what I said about 987, and if they passed inspection in that configuration then it should have been legal. Idk why an inspector would spontaneously inspect a previously approved configuration...
This was just ridiculous. It's totally unfair to disable a robot that slightly sticks into the landfill, on th grounds that moving it is not a "quick fix".
Plus, if a robot gets inspected, and a member from 987 posted that nothing changed, there shhould be an outstanding reason to disable one of the most powerful teams at a reiognal in only the very last match of the finals.
A similar situation happened to us in 2014. An alumni of the team actually inspected our robot and okayed it before elims. We go onto the field and lo and behold- the same guy says that we have to remove part of our robot in order to play.
Actually when I said that, I was quoting someone who was referencing 3802 being disabled for being over the landfill. That is unarguably a quick fix as intended by the rules. I stand by what I said about 987, and if they passed inspection in that configuration then it should have been legal. Idk why an inspector would spontaneously inspect a previously approved configuration...
Refs can call for another inspection if they deem it necessary. Its not rare, but its not common either.
Well Chad987 from that team said that the bot was too tall, and too tall is too tall. If the inspection team missed it then that's unfortunate. Too bad it had to wait to be found in the last match. Sorry 987.
Well Chad987 from that team said that the bot was too tall, and too tall is too tall. If the inspection team missed it then that's unfortunate. Too bad it had to wait to be found in the last match. Sorry 987.
Wait, he said it passed inspection without modifications after that. The rules only say that it has to pass inspection, not follow all the terms surrounding inspection.
The rule is clearly woreded that way to prevent this exact situation from occurring.
Tyler2517
28-02-2015, 22:26
Refs can call for another inspection if they deem it necessary. Its not rare, but its not common either.
This was clearly not done. I don't see how it's possible to disable a robot on the field when there was no re-inspection how do they know i did not see them out on the field with a tape measure?
I think this instance points toward changing the rules to always give the offending team the chance to remedy the situation. Say you get 30 seconds, and if you're not done by then you will be disabled.
Bottom line, it shouldn't be the referees' responsibility to decide whether a team is able to perform an undefined task on its own robot within an unspecified amount of time. That's not on the referees, it's a matter of making the rules less ambiguous.
This was clearly not done. I don't see how it's possible to disable a robot on the field when there was no re-inspection how do they know i did not see them out on the field with a tape measure?
Actually thats exactly what they did. I went back to see if anything was said or done and they actually did measure it with a tape measure on the field.
Wait, he said it passed inspection without modifications after that. The rules only say that it has to pass inspection, not follow all the terms surrounding inspection.
The rule is clearly woreded that way to prevent this exact situation from occurring.
Surely you don't believe this is true? You can pass inspection, but actually be non-compliant with the rules because the inspector either missed something, or the robot was damaged/tweaked during gameplay, causing a situation where it is out of compliance. You still have to fix it...you don't just get a free pass because you passed inspection.
The issue here isn't that 987 was discovered to be non-compliant after passing inspection and changing nothing. It is that they were not given a reasonable amount of time (as the rules call for) to remedy the situation and were instead immediately disabled.
Surely you don't believe this is true? You can pass inspection, but actually be non-compliant with the rules because the inspector either missed something, or the robot was damaged/tweaked during gameplay, causing a situation where it is out of compliance. You still have to fix it...you don't just get a free pass because you passed inspection.
The issue here isn't that 987 was discovered to be non-compliant after passing inspection and changing nothing. It is that they were not given a reasonable amount of time (as the rules call for) to remedy the situation and were instead immediately disabled.
Agreed 100%
They wouldn't even tell us whether or not we were disabled. The only way we knew was when the robot did not move in auto.
Surely you don't believe this is true? You can pass inspection, but actually be non-compliant with the rules because the inspector either missed something, or the robot was damaged/tweaked during gameplay, causing a situation where it is out of compliance. You still have to fix it...you don't just get a free pass because you passed inspection.
The issue here isn't that 987 was discovered to be non-compliant after passing inspection and changing nothing. It is that they were not given a reasonable amount of time (as the rules call for) to remedy the situation and were instead immediately disabled.
Of course you should be following the rules at all times (I'm not disputing that) but if an inspector passes the robot and nobody knows about any rules being broken, it just seems very unfair to rule it illegal in the deciding match of the competition.
I was thinking of rule T8:
"A Team is only permitted to participate in a Qualification or Playoff MATCH and receive Match Points if their ROBOT has passed
Inspection.
VIOLATION: If prior to the start of the MATCH, the ROBOT is not eligible to participate in the MATCH. If after the start of the
MATCH, the entire ALLIANCE receives a RED CARD for that MATCH."
It mentions only passing inspection.
Of course you should be following the rules at all times (I'm not disputing that) but if an inspector passes the robot and nobody knows about any rules being broken, it just seems very unfair to rule it illegal in the deciding match of the competition.
I was thinking of rule T8:
"A Team is only permitted to participate in a Qualification or Playoff MATCH and receive Match Points if their ROBOT has passed
Inspection.
VIOLATION: If prior to the start of the MATCH, the ROBOT is not eligible to participate in the MATCH. If after the start of the
MATCH, the entire ALLIANCE receives a RED CARD for that MATCH."
It mentions only passing inspection.
Just because you pass inspection doesnt give you a clean pass for the remainder of the regional. What he's saying is, through gameplay, your robot may expand; however that may come to happen. And if it is not noticed by the team, but is noticed by the refs, they can chose to inspect it on the spot.
If it is deemed illegal then, it is illegal; while still having passed inspection.
cadandcookies
28-02-2015, 22:49
Agreed 100%
They wouldn't even tell us whether or not we were disabled. The only way we knew was when the robot did not move in auto.
The sudden disable isn't an isolated incident in Dallas. This happened numerous times at North Star Regional last year and significantly affected the rankings and eliminations. It's incredibly frustrating and disheartening to see a team's elimination and qualification matches ruined based on a draconian interpretation of a highly ambiguous rule, particularly without any sort of notification or warning. I can understand wanting to speed matches along, but when the fix is as simple as releasing a solenoid or removing a game-piece, it's getting a bit too ridiculous.
eddie12390
28-02-2015, 22:49
Just because you pass inspection doesnt give you a clean pass for the remainder of the regional. What he's saying is, through gameplay, your robot may expand; however that may come to happen. And if it is not noticed by the team, but is noticed by the refs, they can chose to inspect it on the spot.
If it is deemed illegal then, it is illegal; while still having passed inspection.
I don't think whether or not the rules being enforced at all times is what's really being debated, I think the focus is more on whether or not it was fair to just disable them and start the match instead of giving them some time to resolve the issue.
In the past, we've always been told when a referee had an issue with our robot and given the opportunity to quickly fix it. It seems like that isn't the case this year (or at least in Dallas). It would be nice to get some sort of clarification for that from HQ.
I don't think whether or not the rules being enforced at all times is what's really being debated, I think the focus is more on whether or not it was fair to just disable them and start the match instead of giving them some time to resolve the issue.
In the past, we've always been told when a referee had an issue with our robot and given the opportunity to quickly fix it. It seems like that isn't the case this year (or at least in Dallas). It would be nice to get some sort of clarification for that from HQ.
There is no clarification needed. See G7. It explicitly states that teams are to be given the opportunity to quickly remedy the situation to become compliant, with disabling being a last resort.
Agreed 100%
They wouldn't even tell us whether or not we were disabled. The only way we knew was when the robot did not move in auto.
I'm speechless. This is completely inappropriate. No matter what you think of the ruling (which I completely disagree with, for the record), not taking the time to inform the team of their disablement is neither gracious, nor professional.
Ilovepineapples
28-02-2015, 22:59
The sudden disable isn't an isolated incident in Dallas. This happened numerous times at North Star Regional last year and significantly affected the rankings and eliminations. It's incredibly frustrating and disheartening to see a team's elimination and qualification matches ruined based on a draconian interpretation of a highly ambiguous rule, particularly without any sort of notification or warning. I can understand wanting to speed matches along, but when the fix is as simple as releasing a solenoid or removing a game-piece, it's getting a bit too ridiculous.
This brings back memories from last year... I had a referee from North Star come to me to complain about how teams were being treated - not being told they would be disabled before a match started because they were out of the starting configuration.
Bluman56
28-02-2015, 23:01
After reading that these things are not unusual and have happened before, I am curious to know if the refs that are in charge of making these calls are ever held liable to their decisions. There is a lot at stake in these competitions and for the sake of transparency, I believe there really should be a thorough investigation into this matter. Just my two cents.
g_sawchuk
28-02-2015, 23:04
Should there be an investigation? Yes. Should the refs be investigated? Yes. Were the things that happened both un-GP to 987 and rather unfair in general? Yes. But remember, the refs are volunteers.
Street_dreamZ
28-02-2015, 23:07
Agreed 100%
They wouldn't even tell us whether or not we were disabled. The only way we knew was when the robot did not move in auto.
If the goal of FIRST is to inspire, then the ref who pulled this one did the exact opposite. Things like this make teams regret ever participating. 987 surely worked extremely hard putting this bot together, just like all other teams, and their robot came out great. To see their hard work ruined by an egregious, hasty move made from a judge is awful.
I'm sad.
Should there be an investigation? Yes. Should the refs be investigated? Yes. Were the things that happened both un-GP to 987 and rather unfair in general? Yes. But remember, the refs are volunteers.
The volunteer thing is always a cop out. They're volunteers...that don't have to be invited back next year.
g_sawchuk
28-02-2015, 23:11
If the goal of FIRST is to inspire, then the ref who pulled this one did the exact opposite. Things like this make teams regret ever participating. 987 surely worked extremely hard putting this bot together, just like all other teams, and their robot came out great. To see their hard work ruined by an egregious, hasty move made from a judge is awful.
I'm sad.
People need to realize that things like this happen everywhere throughout FIRST. And it's really, really bad. Although this is a competition, people need to realize that the most important thing is the students learning and having a good time. Mentor built robots are awful. Not awful technically always, but awful as they ruin students ability to learn. Many teams have mentors who disrespect students, or don't let any students do the work. The thing is, there's also teams who don't, and we need to be able to distinguish from the two.
When it comes down to the competition, what's more important? Shutting down a robot without notifying the team, and possibly discouraging the students from STEM careers?
Or giving them a bit to sort it out, and allowing them to run the robot that they worked hard on for 6 weeks.
The volunteer thing is always a cop out. They're volunteers...that don't have to be invited back next year.
Valid point. In all honesty, I'm pretty sure that if a volunteer is being un-GP, someone would gladly take their spot, say as ref.
cadandcookies
28-02-2015, 23:12
Should there be an investigation? Yes. Should the refs be investigated? Yes. Were the things that happened both un-GP to 987 and rather unfair in general? Yes. But remember, the refs are volunteers.
To be honest I think the response has been pretty mild. No calls for a witchhunt or anything. I'm sure the teams affected by this would still like there to be some sort of investigation or at the very least acknowledgement that there has in fact been a problem.
g_sawchuk
28-02-2015, 23:16
To be honest I think the response has been pretty mild. No calls for a witchhunt or anything. I'm sure the teams affected by this would still like there to be some sort of investigation or at the very least acknowledgement that there has in fact been a problem.
I agree with this. To be fair, it will take some time for FIRST to find out/sort this out. I would think 3802 deserves a spot at champs. 148 and 987 are already going from what I've heard.
Dunngeon
28-02-2015, 23:40
It's extremely disappointing to see this no notification starting config disablement resurfacing year after year. It was perhaps my biggest problem with our first event last year, where we were disabled for having two pieces that contact the ball slightly outside our frame perimeter in the middle of quals.
This had the rather unfortunate result of losing us the match. Since then, I make it a point to always ASK refs if our robot is in valid starting configuration if there's anything that is quite close to the limit. That way we at least have some recourse if a disablement occurs for starting config.
Don't even get me started on the "question box"...
sailer99
01-03-2015, 00:14
Was 2613 notified they were going to be disabled and were they given the opportunity to fix it? Had a robot been disabled earlier for non-compliance or were they given the opportunity to fix it? It would be nice to know for future events whether this was a one time call in the finals or whether the refs had made calls like this before. I can't speak for the refs but if they have made a call like this before then maybe they felt they had set a precedent and had to stick to the way they had called this in the past to stay consistent.
I don't have an opinion on the calls themselves but before we sharpen our pitchforks and go after the referees we should remember the call was consistent on both sides of the field.
Thanks Cory - and I agree completely. Pre-Match rule G7 should have been 'properly' applied here. From the official 2015 FIRST Game Manual:
G7 Violation "If fix is a quick remedy, the MATCH won't start until all requirements are met. If it is not a quick remedy the OFFENDING ROBOT will be disabled and at the discretion of the Head REFEREE must be re-inspected".
All reports from the team suggest that the extended component (maybe a fraction of an inch over) could be mechanically retracted by the push of a button. Had the judges/referees properly applied Rule G7, they should have approached the team in order to gauge how quick the fix would be and then rule appropriately. 987 could have lowered the extension in a second and then a fair and spirited match could resume. If the other alliance failed the height test during the match, and 'if' they were allowed to fix it, I don't think either side would have been upset, after all the rule would have been properly applied.
On top of that, to summarily disable the robot without notice was unwarranted and sealed the fate for the Blue Alliance in spite of Team 148’s valiant efforts.
This same sort of thing happened to 987 last year in San Diego with the overboard 50 point foul rule in the last game-deciding match just like here in Dallas. I think dialog in forums like this might have helped sway the rule makers to back away from such things like the 50 point foul which always changed the outcome. In this case the rules were appropriate, but the ones applying the rule were at fault.
CORRECTION TO A PREVIOUS STATEMENT
The statement "(maybe a fraction of an inch over)" is my opinion after reviewing the video about 50 times. I'll assume for the moment that with three judges starring at a tape measure at an angle (since none of them had eyeballs at 6'6" from the ground) for 10 seconds were trying to resolve a fraction of an inch in the height of the robot. If the robot was 6" over the limit we would all just throw up our hands and call it over the limit in about a second.
nobrakes8
01-03-2015, 01:16
Dallas didn't really end the way I think anybody wanted it to.
From our perspective in the stands sitting directly behind the FTA and head ref it looked like they were ready to start the match with all 6 robots until the blue alliance had the female ref on their side of the field get the head ref to stop the countdown. We saw one of the coaches jumping up and down; and while that was happening a 118 driver ran up to another ref. So, we kind of thought it sucked for what happened but it looked like the blue alliance were the ones who had the match get stopped.
I will say this was just a bizarre regional with the weather, delayed start, etc.. We didn't get our robot packed and leave until 10:45 and during the playoff matches it looked like there were a lot of people short on patience as the night wore on.
slickvic2252
01-03-2015, 01:40
Is there any video of the matches?
AlexanderTheOK
01-03-2015, 02:19
Its near the end of the live stream (http://new.livestream.com/accounts/6965108/events/3832663/player_pop_out?lsa_type=LS_EVENT_PAGE&lsa_referrer=) of the event
It's very disappointing to hear how this event ended.
I wish certain field volunteers at FIRST events would keep their heads a bit better when events are running late. They feel pressure to get the event done so the teams and volunteers can go home after a grueling event, but saving a couple of minutes isn't worth it when it creates a highly negative experience for a group of students.
Elimination round matches where the robots aren't all working are a big letdown. Especially in the finals matches. It is worth a few minutes of conversation between referees / FTA's / lead robot inspector / drive team to sort some of this stuff out if it has the potential to avoid a screwed up final match that leaves nobody feeling satisfied in the end.
martin417
01-03-2015, 08:46
People need to realize that things like this happen everywhere throughout FIRST......
This sort of thing does tend to happen often, and there is much hubbub for a while, then it quietly dies out. FIRST almost never addresses it, and there are no visible repercussions.
What should happen? Lets suppose this is the only event that one of the teams attended. This team spent almost $6,000 just for the privilege of playing, plus thousands on tools, equipment and parts to build the robot, plus travel costs. That could easily be $10,000-$15,000. If I was on that team, (assuming the allegations made here are true) I would want that money returned to me. If an error was made by an official representative of FIRST (like a referee) then the onus falls on FIRST, not that referee, so FIRST should pony up the bucks. Remember, we are customers, even though that point is rarely made. We pay money in exchange for a product. If that product is defective, we should get that money back.
g_sawchuk
01-03-2015, 08:54
This sort of thing does tend to happen often, and there is much hubbub for a while, then it quietly dies out. FIRST almost never addresses it, and there are no visible repercussions.
What should happen? Lets suppose this is the only event that one of the teams attended. This team spent almost $6,000 just for the privilege of playing, plus thousands on tools, equipment and parts to build the robot, plus travel costs. That could easily be $10,000-$15,000. If I was on that team, (assuming the allegations made here are true) I would want that money returned to me. If an error was made by an official representative of FIRST (like a referee) then the onus falls on FIRST, not that referee, so FIRST should pony up the bucks. Remember, we are customers, even though that point is rarely made. We pay money in exchange for a product. If that product is defective, we should get that money back.
If FIRST truly wants to inspire people to pursue STEM careers, and doesn't want to risk "uninspiring" some, they should allow the entire 148 alliance entrance to worlds.
JamesTerm
01-03-2015, 09:16
I have nothing more to say about that call or enough time to fix, but I do wish to say that the 987 is one of my favorite robots of all time... that and team 67's robot in 2012... good job guys!
If FIRST truly wants to inspire people to pursue STEM careers, and doesn't want to risk "uninspiring" some, they should allow the entire 148 alliance entrance to worlds.
They're a Legacy team. They're already in.
This sort of thing does tend to happen often, and there is much hubbub for a while, then it quietly dies out. FIRST almost never addresses it, and there are no visible repercussions.
What should happen? Lets suppose this is the only event that one of the teams attended. This team spent almost $6,000 just for the privilege of playing, plus thousands on tools, equipment and parts to build the robot, plus travel costs. That could easily be $10,000-$15,000. If I was on that team, (assuming the allegations made here are true) I would want that money returned to me. If an error was made by an official representative of FIRST (like a referee) then the onus falls on FIRST, not that referee, so FIRST should pony up the bucks. Remember, we are customers, even though that point is rarely made. We pay money in exchange for a product. If that product is defective, we should get that money back.
78" is the limit so in that regard they were ruled by more than one judge too high that violates the rules. If people were challenging that is WAS under 78" then OK but it was OVER 78"
As for should they be allowed to rectify it (delaying game) that's much more of a grey area rule and seeing how the event was running late they made a call not to allow the extended time. ...which is one of two options... extend or not extend..a judgement call.
IMO a robot should never exceed 78" as part of its design in any conditions or placement and should not need to have the benefit of alteration on the field to be under 78". That rule has been there since DAY 1 same as 120 lbs (those are absolute limits)...now if High Rollers got smashed and bent out of shape the prior match then I would agree allow the time but that did not happen and they were out of their usual auto score everything spot....adding scrutiny from new eyes at the center of the field as it took forever to get that match started.
I have no issue with the ruling and High Rollers will still get into Worlds somehow they are an amazing robot/team and always tough.
In the end 78" is 78" and over that can trigger a disable...live with it. Robonaghts/Kryptonight alliance also deserved the Dallas Win they were amazing too and also had disabled bots too to get there....so lets not take away from the Winning Alliance...that let I remind you used only their 2nd robot in a quarter final match and it scored 95 solo.
78" is the limit so in that regard they were ruled by more than one judge too high that violates the rules.
As for should they be allowed to rectify it that's much more of a grey area rule and seeing how the event was running late they made a call not to allow the extended time.
IMO a robot should never exceed 78" as part of its design and should not need to have the benefit of alteration on the field to be under 78". That rule has been there since DAY 1...now if High Rollers got smashed and bent out of shape the prior match then I would agree allow the time but that did not happen and they were out of their usual auto score everything spot....adding scrutiny from new eyes.
I have no issue with the ruling and High Rollers will still get into Worlds somehow they are an amazing robot/team and always tough.
In the end 78" is 78" and over that can trigger a disable...live with it. Robonaghts/Kryptonight alliance also deserved the Win they were amazing too and also had disabled bots too to get there.
They won Chairman's. They're in.
martin417
01-03-2015, 09:31
78" is the limit so in that regard they were ruled by more than one judge too high that violates the rules.
As for should they be allowed to rectify it that's much more of a grey area rule and seeing how the event was running late they made a call not to allow the extended time.
IMO a robot should never exceed 78" as part of its design and should not need to have the benefit of alteration on the field to be under 78". That rule has been there since DAY 1...now if High Rollers got smashed and bent out of shape the prior match then I would agree allow the time but that did not happen and they were out of their usual auto score everything spot....adding scrutiny from new eyes.
I have no issue with the ruling and High Rollers will still get into Worlds somehow they are an amazing robot/team and always tough.
In the end 78" is 78" and over that can trigger a disable...live with it. Robonaghts/Kryptonight alliance also deserved the Win they were amazing too and also had disabled bots too to get there. (Emphasis mine)
What we are discuusing here are the rules as written, not opinion.
Rule G7:
G7 When placed on the FIELD for a MATCH, each ROBOT must be:
A. in compliance with all ROBOT rules, i.e. it has passed Inspection. For exceptions regarding Practice MATCHES, see
Section 5.2 – Practice MATCHES.
B. fully supported by the floor, SCORING PLATFORM, and/or SCORING PLATFORM ramps on their ALLIANCE’S side of the
FIELD, and
C. completely outside of their AUTO ZONE and LANDFILL ZONE.
VIOLATION: If fix is a quick remedy, the MATCH won’t start until all requirements are met. If it is not a quick remedy the offending
ROBOT will be DISABLED and at the discretion of the Head REFEREE must be re-Inspected.
They delayed the start of the match for over five minute in order to determine that the robots were in violation, either or both situations could be rectified in less than 30 seconds. According to the rules as written, both teams should have been allowed to rectify the situation. The fact that they were not even told that they were disabled only makes it worse.
martin417
01-03-2015, 09:32
They won Chairman's. They're in.
All three teams on that alliance?
All three teams on that alliance?
As for "all teams" on their alliance lets face it it was TWO robots that did all the work for that alliance actually three if you count the tether bots Robo Wranglers (2 bots tethered) and High Rollers. That third/fourth robot... did nothing legit in terms of overall scoring to make it to worlds other than being selected third robot on that alliance to have a good chance... insert any other robot same outcome. They were lucky to be selected and get that far. I think they scored 8 when High Rollers was disabled in prior match in 135 seconds of trying.
All three teams on that alliance?
148 was in before the season began.
3802 did not qualify.
martin417
01-03-2015, 09:41
As for "all teams" on their alliance lets face it it was TWO robots that did all the work. That third robot... did nothing legit to make it to world other than being selected third robot on that alliance... insert any other robot same outcome.
There are lots of strategies. One very viable strategy for winning is to be an excellent third pick. Both 148 and 967 thought that they picked the right third partner, that partner deserves the respect that position earns, as well as the accolades. If you were third pick at worlds, and your alliance won Einstein, wouldn't you feel like you had accomplished something?
There are lots of strategies. One very viable strategy for winning is to be an excellent third pick. Both 148 and 967 thought that they picked the right third partner, that partner deserves the respect that position earns, as well as the accolades. If you were third pick at worlds, and your alliance won Einstein, wouldn't you feel like you had accomplished something?
No... I would feel lucky if our bot not contribute in any meaningful way (when asked) lets get serious...again they had a chance to help and WIN in that final game and pick up the slack they failed to change the outcome and to help 148 as a "valued alliance member". The other alliance had same issues with disabled bots and won..its fair. Perhaps had that 2nd place alliance picked a stronger third robot (with 1st pick mind you) they would have won. The third robot on the winning alliance did pull their weight and deserves Worlds more than the third on the second place alliance. The second in the winning alliance in playoffs one put up 95 solo...nearly beating three robots at 106.
What do you want FIRST students to learn? Life handed to you OR deal with adversity and make your own luck in life.
This was a good life lesson. Be prepared. That alliance should have never invited scrutiny over 78" height.
Best alliance of three teams won in Dallas. That's what happened.
As for best bot...148!!!
High Rollers and Robonauts were similar in Teleop. High Rollers AMAZING auto!
Did you see that Superbowl where 19-0 Patriots lost are we complaining over that?
High Rollers and Robo-Wranglers will use this as motivation.
MrJohnston
01-03-2015, 10:09
Such an uproar... Yes, it was a huge call at a large event. Yes, referee calls had a huge influence on the outcome. However, there are some things to consider....
The bigger picture:
* FIRST is not all about the robot or all about winning championships. It is about Gracious Professionalism and Inspiration. A part of Gracious Professionalism to me is not jumping to conclusions and making accusations without having all the information.
* Referees are volunteers who spend countless hours helping FIRST to become a fantastic competition. I am certain that none of them are doing so simply for the opportunity to undermine a bunch of kids' robots.
* We do have rules to follow for these games. If one team wins a championship by being permitted to skirt a handful of rules, does that not cheapen the event for the teams they beat?
* At this point we have heard from one person who was directly involved in the incident. Almost every time there is an incident of any sort, all witnesses to an event only have "part" of a story. It is very likely that the poster from 987 does not have the entire story - and may not even realize it. Also, the mere fact that the poster is from 987 means that the poster has a natural bias. His/her reporting and understanding of the events could very well be skewed unintentionally. Before jumping to conclusions, therefore, should we not at least hear from a referee who was a part of this call?
This particular scenario:
Folks have found plenty of reasons to "blame the ref" so far. Here are some possible situations that may have been at play that would justify the referee's call. Was I there? No. I have no idea if these were a part of the decision or not - neither does nearly everybody else on this thread.
* There had been repeated warnings in the event about delaying the start of the match. 987 had already been disabled in the semis for this. It could have been that the time (however short) to fix the height issue as "yet another delay" and they were not being given any more room to adjust.
* It could be that 987 had been playing too tall all competition and that the referees never noticed it. However, somebody on the opposing alliance did and brought it to the ref's attention in the finals.
* It was reported that "pushing a button on the solenoid" would have remedied the problem. I am reading this as "pressing a button to release air pressure in a pneumatic system." This certainly would have been quick and legal. However, if I am not interpreting this correctly, could "pressing the button" be something that required the robot to be enabled? This would have been illegal.
* For all we know, 987 had already taken too long to set up for that match and "one more delay" was just too much.
Again, we overall really don't know all the details and never will.
On behalf of all the students and mentors of 148:
Dallas is our "home" regional, and we're proud to have competed here for all 7 years of its existence. We love having so many of our alumni, peers, sponsors, parents, and supporters able to attend. To see the overwhelming support of the Greenville community is an amazing thing.
Like all FRC events, this weekend had many, many, many incredible moments.
Being able to play with our long-time friends from 987 for the first time was a privilege. As anyone who has interacted with them can attest, they are a class act worthy of the highest praise and accolades.
We've similarly known 3802 for a long time, and enjoyed getting to work with them. They made huge contributions to our alliance being able to put up the world-high score, and helped (almost literally) through a weird semi-final series.
This event was filled with friends, and even some teams we consider family. The camaraderie around the field and in the pits throughout the weekend was unlike any event we've attended.
Special thank-you to our fellow #TeamIFI teams 1296 and 3310. If you think our robot is crazy, you should see what these two teams have going on. :)
We feel no disappointment in losing to two #TeamTexas powerhouses, two of the best teams in the world, and some of our closest friends: 118 & 624.
Many of you noticed 3802 sitting out our first quarterfinal match. This was because all three of our alliance teams were working to upgrade their machine (with the oversight of the inspectors & within the rules of the game) to pull cans off the center step. We (as an alliance) discussed them "sitting" to give us more time for the modification, and 3802 eagerly agreed. Everyone on 148 was thrilled they were around for us to pick, and could not have asked for a better 3rd partner.
Like during most competitions, there were a some frustrating moments during the playoffs. Many of you have commented on a few of those.
Regarding SF2:
-148 was informed we were not allowed onto the field because we were late to the match. The ruling on the field was that we were called several times and did not respond in time.
-987 was disabled. The ruling on the field was that they took too long during setup, which is something they had been warned about multiple times.
Regarding F3:
-987 was disabled, their robot was measured by the inspectors and determined to be over the height restriction after setup. This was not an "added" mechanism. That mechanism was always on their robot (all weekend), but was not used in "can grabber" configuration until F3.
While we are disappointed in the results and disappointed in the way some of this was handled, it in no way detracted from our team's experience at the regional. We had a great time at the event, are incredibly proud of our performance and are thankful to all the event volunteers for donating their time. We appreciate the referees always taking the time to explain their rulings to our student representatives even when we did not agree with their interpretations of the rules.
We are all learning the new playoff format, and as such need to be especially careful about setup time, and getting to the field on-time. We are somewhat disappointed by the guidance, information, and warnings our team received from event officials during "the strangeness" of these playoffs. However, we understand that if the field staff feels that our alliance was adequately "warned", there isn't anything else we should expect, and appreciate their openness in discussing their feelings on the matter.
The "snow delay" schedule caused a lot of problems this weekend. The event management, teams, and volunteers all did their part to overcome these problems and hold a GREAT event.
Our team is eager to continue our competition season in a few at the Las Vegas Regional, and then showcase Batman & Robin at the Championship Event in St. Louis. We have 3.5 weeks of iteration in front of us, and a lot of motivation. :)
On a personal note...
I am extremely proud of our "kids" on how they handled themselves this weekend, even in (abnormally) stressful circumstances. The students of Greenville High School continue to astound me, even all these years later. I'm proud to call myself a Robowrangler.
martin417
01-03-2015, 10:26
The bigger picture:
* FIRST is not all about the robot or all about winning championships. It is about Gracious Professionalism and Inspiration. A part of Gracious Professionalism to me is not jumping to conclusions and making accusations without having all the information.
This is used far too often as an excuse as why bad calls don't matter. People: THIS IS A COMPETITION! THE TEAMS ARE HERE TO WIN, AND THEY WANT TO WIN!
* We do have rules to follow for these games. If one team wins a championship by being permitted to skirt a handful of rules, does that not cheapen the event for the teams they beat?
The teams are held accountable to the rules, shouldn't the refs and FIRST also be held accountable?
* For all we know, 987 had already taken too long to set up for that match and "one more delay" was just too much.
They delayed the start of the match for over five minutes in order to rule the two bots in violation, why not give them a brief time period (as the rules allow) to rectify the situation?
You also gave a lot of what ifs, maybe they were warned before, maybe.. maybe... etc. but the rules don't say anything about a quick fix being allowed if they haven't been given a past warning, they say VIOLATION: If fix is a quick remedy, the MATCH won’t start until all requirements are met
This is not what happened. I would like to see FIRST either give a thoughtful, reasoned explanation, or give a public apology and some form of compensation for the three teams involved.
Note that I do not know anybody on any of the teams involved, I only know what I witnessed. If there is an explanation that fully accounts for what happened, and agrees with the rules that were published before the start of the competition, I will apologize and retract my statements.
MrJohnston
01-03-2015, 10:42
Martin,
All I am really saying is this:
I am in Washington State. According to you bio, you are in Georgia. Both of those locations are far enough from Dallas that we are not likely first-hand witnesses. (Okay, you could have traveled, but from the sound of your comment, you did not.)
We do not know that it was a bad call. We don't have the information. Yes, I have lots of "ifs." That's because you and I do not know what happened and, from my perspective, there were all sorts of things that could have justified the referee's decision.
As for GP: Yes it is a competition. Yes, we want to win. However, the desire to win does not excuse us from Gracious Professionalism. In fact, I would suggest that one of the most important lessons of FIRST is to learn to maintain GP in the heat of competition - or in its aftermath. Is it not professional to listen to both sides of a story before jumping to conclusions? Do we really want to condemn a referee without at least hearing his justification for a call?
Read the well-worded response from the 148 mentor between our two posts. In his mind, the rules were followed correctly, they only question the "guidance" and "warnings" given- something that is certainly not defined within the rules.
pmangels17
01-03-2015, 10:45
Best alliance of three teams won in Dallas. That's what happened.
You can't make that argument unless we know the full situation, which I'm not entirely sure that we do. You could very well be correct, but given the way the finals turned out, and the statement from 987 that they were a solenoid flip away from compliance, and that the rules allow explicitly for a quick fix of the problem if it is a quick fix, shouldn't there have been given time to 987 (and for that matter 118's third pick) to fix their non-compliance issues? The debate isn't really over who is the best, it is about who was or was not given a fair chance to prove that they were the best.
Did you see that Superbowl where 19-0 Patriots lost are we complaining over that?
As a humble New Yorker, I'm glad to see people still sour that they lost to us in two superbowls :D
You can't make that argument unless we know the full situation, which I'm not entirely sure that we do. You could very well be correct, but given the way the finals turned out, and the statement from 987 that they were a solenoid flip away from compliance, and that the rules allow explicitly for a quick fix of the problem if it is a quick fix, shouldn't there have been given time to 987 (and for that matter 118's third pick) to fix their non-compliance issues? The debate isn't really over who is the best, it is about who was or was not given a fair chance to prove that they were the best.
As a humble New Yorker, I'm glad to see people still sour that they lost to us in two superbowls :D
Again my retort will always be NEVER go over 78" height or 120lbs weight it's in the rules. Teams had a lot of other leeway (unprecedented). I know the situation based on multiple second hand accounts that High Rollers was over 78" at the time by more than one judge, had the judges not caught it they would have exceeded 78" which is a not allowed. "Them's the rules."
orangemoore
01-03-2015, 11:14
Again my retort will always be NEVER go over 78" height or 120lbs weight it's in the rules. Teams had a lot of other leeway (unprecedented). I know the situation based on second hand accounts High Rollers was over 78" at the time by more than one judge, had the judges not caught it they would have exceeded 78" which is a not allowed.
Would you have the same stance as you do now if your robot was in violation of the rules just as they were?
Would you have the same stance as you do now if your robot was in violation of the rules just as they were?
Its nearly impossible for our robot to go beyond 78" as its 77.75 " unless damaged and bent upwards (unlikely) and if we modified it or tried to modify it and changed our strategy to now pull RC's off wall the rules of 78" high and 120lbs do not change. That's what specs in rules are for..to design within those parameters when in game on field to balance out the competition.
Not sure whats so hard for people to understand that BOTH 78" and 120lbs are absolute limits? They were by all accounts at the time in violation...that's the thing about regular math there is only 1 right answer. We see what happens when tolerances/limits are not followed in science....sometimes tragedy.
If the uproar was they were under 78" on the field I would join the crowd. Actually good this happened in Week 1 for every team to be made aware...and double check those two absolutes.
The answer would I be upset sure, who wouldn't?... would I understand YES totally, just as the 2nd place in Dallas alliance members already stated. Their responses should be your answer.
On behalf of all the students and mentors of 148:
On a personal note...
I am extremely proud of our "kids" on how they handled themselves this weekend, even in (abnormally) stressful circumstances. The students of Greenville High School continue to astound me, even all these years later. I'm proud to call myself a Robowrangler.
These "kids" handled themselves as they did because they are following the example of the finest mentors and leaders in FIRST. There will never be a competition where 100% of the calls are good, or every match schedule is even. Inspiring the students to accept these facts with grace and humility is as important as teaching them to build a robot. Hat's off to all of the mentors on team 148, you are inspiring leaders who will succeed no matter what path they chose in life.
Read the well-worded response from the 148 mentor between our two posts. In his mind, the rules were followed correctly, they only question the "guidance" and "warnings" given- something that is certainly not defined within the rules.
Our interpretations of the rules differed on several occasions from those of the head referee, but we must acknowledge his ruling is final and thank him for volunteering.
Paul Copioli
01-03-2015, 11:48
Its nearly impossible for our robot to go beyond 78" as its 77.75 " unless damaged and bent upwards (unlikely) and if we modified it or tried to modify it and changed our strategy to now pull RC's off wall the rules of 78" high and 120lbs do not change. That's what specs in rules are for..to design within those parameters when in game on field to balance out the competition.
Not sure whats so hard for people to understand that BOTH 78" and 120lbs are absolute limits? They were by all accounts at the time in violation...that's the thing about regular math there is only 1 right answer. We see what happens when tolerances/limits are not followed in science....sometimes tragedy.
If the uproar was they were under 78" on the field I would join the crowd. Actually good this happened in Week 1 for every team to be made aware...and double check those two absolutes.
The answer would I be upset sure, who wouldn't?... would I understand YES totally, just as the 2nd place in Dallas alliance members already stated. Their responses should be your answer.
While I agree with you on most of the things you say, this year there is a rule in black and white that if the robot is outside the dimensions and there is a quick fix then the team is allowed to remedy before the match is started.
Also, I was there. They were using a tape measure and it had a significant curve in it while measuring. That simple math means that the length they measured was not accurate, or at least that's what simple geometry states. I mean, the curve in the tape measure was severe. Extremely severe.
I am certain the way these teams were treated at Dallas is NOT what Frank and his team intended and I expect a clarification soon.
I will be writing a letter to Frank explaining what I saw, in detail, from watching right by the sidelines. My entire team and I saw the same "strangeness" with no explanation at all from the referee.
In all of my years of competing I can't remember a more "strange" interpretation of the rules than in Dallas this year.
While I agree with you on most of the things you say, this year there is a rule in black and white that if the robot is outside the dimensions and there is a quick fix then the team is allowed to remedy before the match is started.
Also, I was there. They were using a tape measure and it had a significant curve in it while measuring. That simple math means that the length they measured was not accurate, or at least that's what simple geometry states. I mean, the curve in the tape measure was severe. Extremely severe.
I am certain the way these teams were treated at Dallas is NOT what Frank and his team intended and I expect a clarification soon.
I will be writing a letter to Frank explaining what I saw, in detail, from watching right by the sidelines. My entire team and I saw the same "strangeness" with no explanation at all from the referee.
In all of my years of competing I can't remember a more "strange" interpretation of the rules than in Dallas this year.
Why not have a wood/metal staff at 78" with a plane at 90 degrees on top to measure? If they were under 78" then uproar should ensue.
I agree there needs to be a more unambiguous way of measuring. Put that in your letter please you have a legitimate observation and expertise. IMO they should remove the "quick fix" sub-rule. It is what it is at time of competition. Up to team to ensure compliance at all times.
g_sawchuk
01-03-2015, 11:55
They're a Legacy team. They're already in.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, 148 and 987 have already qualified. 3802 has not.
Jay O'Donnell
01-03-2015, 11:56
Why not have a wood/metal staff at 78" with a plane at 90 degrees on top to measure? If they were under 78" then uproar should ensue.
I agree there needs to be a more unambiguous way of measuring. Put that in your letter please you have a legitimate observation and expertise. IMO they should remove the "quick fix" sub-rule.
The alliance station wall is 78" tall. You should be able to put a robot next to that and tell pretty quickly. Even if you need a board or something to check.
I wish they had the "inspection device" out there to do the measurement properly (an L shaped PVC piece exactly 78" that they swung around to make sure it was under). It is entire possible that something was tweaked and was above the 78", in which case we could probably have just bent it back or as Chad said we could have switched the pneumatic solenoid, but it was, for lack of a better word, a "strange" ordeal.
We really did have a great time at the Dallas regional meeting so many great teams and great volunteers. Finally getting to work with the Robowranglers and 3802 was one of the best experiences we've had. We need a little bit to decompress from all the excitement, rescheduling flights for the entire team due to the inclement weather and packing up a crate for shipping.
Congrats to the awesome alliance of 118 624 and 2613 on a well deserved win. What an awesome finals for week 1. We're very excited for the future of this game and can't wait to see you guys again at champs.
I wish they had the "inspection device" out there to do the measurement properly (an L shaped PVC piece exactly 78" that they swung around to make sure it was under). It is entire possible that something was tweaked and was above the 78", in which case we could probably have just bent it back or as Chad said we could have switched the pneumatic solenoid, but it was, for lack of a better word, a "strange" ordeal.
We really did have a great time at the Dallas regional meeting so many great teams and great volunteers. Finally getting to work with the Robowranglers and 3802 was one of the best experiences we've had. We need a little bit to decompress from all the excitement, rescheduling flights for the entire team due to the inclement weather and packing up a crate for shipping.
Congrats to the awesome alliance of 118 624 and 2613 on a well deserved win. What an awesome finals for week 1. We're very excited for the future of this game and can't wait to see you guys again at champs.
All I can say is glad you chose to not do San Diego/Ventura this year...good luck in Vegas your auto is most awesome thing I've seen.
These are my closing comments, replies, and opinions on this thread having posted to it many times.
I agree with some aspects of Boltman’s opinion and with Martin's too but the important point here from a RULE's perspective is NOT that the robot was too tall, or too heavy, with dimensions too wide, or anything else that makes a robot non-compliant even after passing tech inspection, it's that the RULES, all of them but especially G7 were not correctly applied in this situation, a situation where referee opinion would have the most devastating effect on the outcome of the game.
As I posted earlier, the robot 'may' have appeared be too tall by just a fraction of an inch given the angle at which the referees were viewing the measurement as seen from MY point of view, but now with eyewitness report from Paul Copioli that a severe error in measurement technique was applied by the referees using a flexible measuring tape, I take back the concession that the robot may have been too tall. Two errors in measurement is two-too-many and that's a problem.
Jay O'Donnell and Boltman pointed out that a measuring device like a stick (calibrated of course) could be used and I agree. A measuring tape is best used to measure dimensions closer to the ground along a FLAT PLANE and not held over your head away from eye level. They don't need to use a special, single-purpose, calibrated instrument for every aspect of the tech inspection but a stick with the measuring tape applied along the edge with a bubble level to correct the plumb of the stick would do the trick, would provide consistent measurements across all robots, and is cheap too. This approach is not unprecedented as I'll assume that they are using a scale to measure the weight of the robot and not simply picking it up and saying 'yeah - that feels about right'. And since we are rolling football into this thread, don't the refs use a calibrated chain to measure 10 yards for a first down in everything from JV football all the way to the NFL?
Martin, Boltman, and others pointed out that the time it took to make a [poor] measurement and debate the issue probably took longer than it would have taken to 'quickly' correct the issue in the first place, and I agree with that completely. Here's another place where a calibrated instrument could have been used to measure a suspected violation and provide consistency and fairness for all teams and remove the ambiguous word 'quick' from the rule book. The calibrated instrument in this case is a stopwatch. In the case of a properly measured violation, a team would have exactly three minutes to enter the field, correct the issue and leave the field; after that, the violation is re-assessed and the decision is rendered. That's exactly what happened to 987 when they were warned for taking too much time for setup in a previous match, a referee or judge somewhere started a countdown - can't argue with that unless the Team was not advised that the timer was started. Robots like 2613 and others were similarly affected by not being allowed to apply the 'quick fix' which was also surprising and unfortunate.
The 987 robot was in a new, never used configuration along the edge of the landfill in this final match as anyone can testify that saw every match, just as I did. Their typical autonomous configuration was within the totes and containers in the backfield where the rear extraction arm was usually in a lower position than in this match. If the robot was tech inspected in this lower position then in may have been overlooked by the inspector, and if was inspected in the raised configuration then is was improperly measured by the inspector but either case the tech inspection should have caught it.
Nobrakes8 is also correct in his assessment of the ref that spotted the suspected violation. She is the ref for the Blue Alliance's rear-most scoring platform and it appears, after repeated viewing of the recorded video, that she spotted the issue independently and brought it to the attention of two other refs on that side of the field who immediately raised their hands to stop the match and pointed at the top of the robot.
MrJohnson - I don't think anybody is seriously 'condemning' a ref but instead pointing out that refs are people too and people make mistakes, and when they do nothing says unbiased like having more eyes/ears on the issue, which is what we had here. That should convince anyone that there is no conspiracy or collusion in this judgment. What is in question is why the refs/judges did not follow the wording of rule as outlined in G7, a rule which I'm pretty sure ALL TEAMS were expecting to invoke if at any point there bot became non-compliant during the game. Instead, summary judgment was the rule of the day.
That they were not allowed to even play was the most surprising and devastating aspect of the refs decision. Had they applied the 'quick fix', competed, and then lost the match, everybody involved would have felt better knowing that the Red Alliance was truly the better alliance of the two. For sports' athletes who train tirelessly for competition, do you think they feel satisfied when they arrive to the arena and are awarded first prize when they find their opponents immobile in a full body cast and unable to play? Do you think they consider their time well spent in training? Would you?
Hat's off to the kids on both alliances for practicing Gracious Professionalism but also for the coaches and mentors from both alliances who quickly approached the judges and referees in order to debate this important decision at the critical moment, in spite of the warning that the refs ruling would be final.
PayneTrain
01-03-2015, 14:46
The alliance station wall is 78" tall. You should be able to put a robot next to that and tell pretty quickly. Even if you need a board or something to check.
The field has things in a +/- 1 inch tolerance, iirc. We learned that the hard way this week with regards to the flat parts of the field :/
CGuenther
01-03-2015, 14:51
Nobrakes8 is also correct in his assessment of the ref that spotted the suspected violation. She is the ref for the Blue Alliance's rear-most scoring platform and it appears, after repeated viewing of the recorded video, that she spotted the issue independently and brought it to the attention of two other refs on that side of the field who immediately raised their hands to stop the match and pointed at the top of the robot.
I was not party to the conversation between head ref and inspector that lead to the measurement of 987's mechanism, but the female ref you see walk over to get the head refs attention did NOT do so independently. You could not see this in the live feed, but the blue alliance members were waving their arms and yelling in an attempt to get the attention of the head ref to call for a height measurement on team 2613's new can grabber. The ref that you see go to the head ref was trying to relay that message. You can hear the blue alliance yelling "height" several times during the match video. Team 2613 had already been disabled at this point in the match due to breaking the plane of the landfill zone during their setup, which I believe is the reason that they were not measured as well.
As a fly on the wall at this regional, there were certainly some judgement calls from field volunteers that I believe were questionable, but your analysis of the video is not correct. The female ref was passing information from the blue alliance to the head ref, nothing else.
JamesTerm
01-03-2015, 15:09
Also, I was there. They were using a tape measure and it had a significant curve in it while measuring. That simple math means that the length they measured was not accurate, or at least that's what simple geometry states. I mean, the curve in the tape measure was severe. Extremely severe.
I'd be interested to know how much of an error happened due to this... maybe that would a good number to know (i.e. error tolerance) for future designs... that and to carry a big stick with you (perhaps a 78" flag for your team... a dual purpose use-case).
If the ref... has issue and brings out the tape measure... run out with your flag... say... no, no, no, look! see!.
CGuenther - OK I'll give you that. My angle was from the other side of the field and I didn't see anyone from the Blue [?] Alliance point it out to the ref although I did hear the word 'height' reverberate through the audience. Upon reviewing the recorded video many times after the match, I was paying close attention to both sides of the field to see if anyone walked up to the ref to give her that information, so from that perspective she acted independently as the refs that stopped the match appeared to be acting on her observation alone. Again, I'm not pointing fingers at any referee, just saying that I didn't see any wrong-doing in the neutral staff for initially stopping the match.
wireties
01-03-2015, 18:05
I am extremely proud of our "kids" on how they handled themselves this weekend, even in (abnormally) stressful circumstances. The students of Greenville High School continue to astound me, even all these years later. I'm proud to call myself a Robowrangler.
We geezers driving the 1296 trailer had to leave a bit before the ceremonies but we watched the anomalous events during the last few matches. The one thing that stuck with me was the consistent grace and professionalism exhibited by the 148/987/3802 students and mentors. #TeamIFI #TeamTether
Kyler Hagler
01-03-2015, 18:31
I just wanted to say congratulations to Keith Buchanan for winning the regionals Woodie Flowers Award! You definitely deserved it! I also wanted to say thanks to Team 148, 987 and 3802 for showing the upmost gracious professionalism during the stressful and highstake finals.
jaykris284
01-03-2015, 19:19
Let's face it here, being overly critical of FIRST and refs is not going to solve anything. Unless you have been a referee for FIRST it is very hard to understand the immense pressure they are under. Rather focus on the positives.
1. People from FIRST read Chief Delphi, they will make minor adjustments for the upcoming regionals.
2. There are some awesome FIRST volunteers out there. For example at Palmetto, one of the FTA's, Jerry, understood that teams had spent 6 weeks building a robot and was not going to deny them of the opportunity to let them play because of one stupid error. One of the teams on our alliance actually had a laptop suddenly restart and Jerry noticed and quickly called to get a classmate for the team to use just in case. Would it have been as helpful as the team's own laptop? No, but it would ensure they at least got the chance to compete. Hats off to Jerry.
Rather than criticizing referees and the volunteers for FIRST and demanding an apology, lets make suggestions to make it better. Additionally all teams know what they are getting into when they sign up for a 1st week regional, they chose to take that risk, not FIRST.
This is used far too often as an excuse as why bad calls don't matter. People: THIS IS A COMPETITION! THE TEAMS ARE HERE TO WIN, AND THEY WANT TO WIN!
The teams are held accountable to the rules, shouldn't the refs and FIRST also be held accountable?
They delayed the start of the match for over five minutes in order to rule the two bots in violation, why not give them a brief time period (as the rules allow) to rectify the situation?
You also gave a lot of what ifs, maybe they were warned before, maybe.. maybe... etc. but the rules don't say anything about a quick fix being allowed if they haven't been given a past warning, they say
This is not what happened. I would like to see FIRST either give a thoughtful, reasoned explanation, or give a public apology and some form of compensation for the three teams involved.
Note that I do not know anybody on any of the teams involved, I only know what I witnessed. If there is an explanation that fully accounts for what happened, and agrees with the rules that were published before the start of the competition, I will apologize and retract my statements.
plnyyanks
01-03-2015, 19:41
2. There are some awesome FIRST volunteers out there. For example at Palmetto, one of the FTA's, Jerry, understood that teams had spent 6 weeks building a robot and was not going to deny them of the opportunity to let them play because of one stupid error. One of the teams on our alliance actually had a laptop suddenly restart and Jerry noticed and quickly called to get a classmate for the team to use just in case. Would it have been as helpful as the team's own laptop? No, but it would ensure they at least got the chance to compete. Hats off to Jerry.
I've worked with Jerry fieldside before, and he's absolutely one of the best I've come to know. If I ever get FTA certified, I hope I can be half as good as he is. Definitely a well deserved shout out.
mrgoldtech
01-03-2015, 20:08
Whoah, whoah, let's not get ahead of ourselves here. 987 was the one who issued the prematch inspection against 2613 regarding robot height, yet their own robot is too tall to be competing anyways. Anyone see the hypocrisy here? If 987 had taken the time to properly measure their robot and not jump to immediate conclusions regarding robot height than there should not have been any problems. And either way, rules are rules, I can't see how the referees would allow an illegal robot to perform, especially in a final. As always, congratulations to 118 and 624, and 148 and 987.
Paul Copioli
01-03-2015, 20:25
Whoah, whoah, let's not get ahead of ourselves here. 987 was the one who issued the prematch inspection against 2613 regarding robot height, yet their own robot is too tall to be competing anyways. Anyone see the hypocrisy here? If 987 had taken the time to properly measure their robot and not jump to immediate conclusions regarding robot height than there should not have been any problems. And either way, rules are rules, I can't see how the referees would allow an illegal robot to perform, especially in a final. As always, congratulations to 118 and 624, and 148 and 987.
Then you simply don't understand the rules as written this year. There is a specific rule to allow quick fixes if the refs determine an out of size condition on the field.
Whoah, whoah, let's not get ahead of ourselves here. 987 was the one who issued the prematch inspection against 2613 regarding robot height, yet their own robot is too tall to be competing anyways. Anyone see the hypocrisy here? If 987 had taken the time to properly measure their robot and not jump to immediate conclusions regarding robot height than there should not have been any problems. And either way, rules are rules, I can't see how the referees would allow an illegal robot to perform, especially in a final. As always, congratulations to 118 and 624, and 148 and 987.I don't know about your bolded statement, but "If 987 had taken the time to properly measure their robot" is a fundamentally false premise. They passed inspection (per JVN and Chad987). Twice. In fact, it's the exact opposite of hypocrisy: they worked very hard on their robot and built, according to at least two previous inspections (standard qual and elim) was ruled entirely legal. They expected everyone to be held to the same strict standard, not curved tape measures (per Paul Copioli).
As far as the "rules are rules", yes, they are. And the rule reads, verbatim: "If fix is a quick remedy, the MATCH won’t start until all requirements are met." 987 was ruled out of compliance with a reinspection. This put them newly in violation of G7 on the field, after they'd left for the Alliance Station. The 'penalty', as stated in the rules, is to allow them a "quick remedy". This portion of the rules, assuming the quick remedy was known to all, does not appear to have be followed. But it's not 987 that violated it.
mrgoldtech
01-03-2015, 21:54
I don't know about your bolded statement, but "If 987 had taken the time to properly measure their robot" is a fundamentally false premise. They passed inspection (per JVN and Chad987). Twice. In fact, it's the exact opposite of hypocrisy: they worked very hard on their robot and built, according to at least two previous inspections (standard qual and elim) was ruled entirely legal. They expected everyone to be held to the same strict standard, not curved tape measures (per Paul Copioli).
As far as the "rules are rules", yes, they are. And the rule reads, verbatim: "If fix is a quick remedy, the MATCH won’t start until all requirements are met." 987 was ruled out of compliance with a reinspection. This put them newly in violation of G7 on the field, after they'd left for the Alliance Station. The 'penalty', as stated in the rules, is to allow them a "quick remedy". This portion of the rules, assuming the quick remedy was known to all, does not appear to have be followed. But it's not 987 that violated it.
By prematch inspection, I mean calling out 2613 for having a robot that was too tall even though theirs was too tall. Additionally, after 10 minutes of reviewing the issue of 987's robot height, the final score stayed the same. If 987 was actually under 78", then why wasn't a rematch called?
While G7 has been referenced multiple times in regard to the referees ruling in 987's situation, G7 is not applicable to what happened. G7, section A, specifically stipulates that the robot must be in compliance with all Robot Rules.The only Robot Rule regarding Robot height is R3 which specifies that the robot must be no more than 78" tall when in TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION and the duration of the match (eg. the robot can be any height pre-match and post-match when not being transported). When the robot was reinspected, it was not in TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION nor during the duration of the match. 987 was never in violation of G7 nor were they disabled because of G7 because when the robot was left on the field, it wasn't in violation of any robot rules.
I think that the real reason 987 was disabled was G22, which states that the robot may not exceed 6'6" during the duration of the match. While this would warrant a foul in most cases, if the head referee believes that its strategic, the robot will be disabled. While this rule seems quite subjective, it is quite plausible that the head referee that it was their strategy to briefly exceed this height limit. While I personally am not happy with the aftermath of this ruling, I believe that the referees followed the rules throughout. If the rules aren't changed or clarified, this situation could be repeated at other regionals. If I am misunderstanding the rules or missing something, please feel free to correct me.
Regardless of what occurred, both finalist alliances performed very strongly and I would like to congratulate them for that.
bstew, Re: G22. Very interesting point, but any G22 violation would've had to occur after a violation of G22, and thus during the match (even if at the initial start). At least according to the reports in this thread, 987 was deliberately disabled before the match and not even informed of the fact. This is strict G7 ("Pre-Match Rules") territory. It is a brilliant (and overly picky, IMO, but that's not at all on you) rule reading, though, if the penalty implementation had been executed with similar strictness. But now either way G7 or G22 was being used improperly, and it's improper rule execution on at least one party, if not two. (The second being 987, if they were in fact over height.) Separately, the G22 argument would hinge on whether 987's transport configuration was at the same height as its pre-match configuration at the given time. It appears that it was, which becomes a clear G7 issue again.
By prematch inspection, I mean calling out 2613 for having a robot that was too tall even though theirs wasn't too tall. Additionally, after 10 minutes of reviewing the issue of 987's robot height, the final score stayed the same. If 987 was actually under 78", then why wasn't a rematch called?Please understand, I'm not claiming that they were or weren't in fact over 78 inches. (I don't know that anyone is or can, which is part of the problem.) The issue isn't what the height actually was, it's what the rules actually say. Regardless of how tall they were at the time, the reinspection either changed their status under G7, or resulted in a premature G22 disable. The "violation" for G7 is to allow a "quick remedy"; the strategic violation of G22 is an in-match disable. This is the first I'm hearing about an after-match review, but if there was anything to review, it's the execution of G7/G22, not just the height of the robot. 987's post-match height could've been measured to the micron. It wouldn't matter. They may of may not have actually erred in their robot height; we don't know (personally). We do know that the handling of G7/22 is in question.
As for calling opposing robots into question for possible violations, I'd argue it's a personal practice issue. But there's absolutely nothing illegal about it, and if I'd worked hard for 6 weeks to get your twice inspection-passed 77.9"* robot to function as well as 987, I can see the argument for holding others to the same standard. They had every reason to be confident they were legal: they were legal [at least in terms of the Game Manual, until they were reinspected for the third time]. You and I might disagree with the practice, but it's anything but hypocritical.
*this is made up; I don't know their actual intended height.
As to 987's height being different than that of their TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION, it has been implied that they started in a different "can-grabbing" configuration that had never been used during the competition. While I cannot verify that this is true, it has also been implied that their robot was inspected and transported with this mechanism lowered.
Whether 987 were disabled before the match or near instantly at the start of the match will probably have to be left to speculation, but I am still of the opinion that G7 was never violated. If indeed they were disabled before the match, I will have to agree that the rules were not followed perfectly, but the result would have been the same as if they were disabled within the first second of the match.
While we will probably never know if 987 was indeed over the height restrictions, I find no reason for G7 to be called. If they were, according to my "picky" reading of the rules, they should have been disabled as soon as the match started as they violated G22. If they were not over 6'6" (which I think is quite possible), the match should have proceeded normally. My point is that according to the current set of rules, there is no room for the referees to have let them remedy the situation.
Even though I wish 987 would have had the chance to at least verify that they were over the height limit or have been told they were going to be disabled, the head referee's decision is final and the head referee decided that they were indeed over the height limit. I would like to see G7, Section A be expanded to "in compliance with all ROBOT and GAME rules, i.e. it has passed Inspection. For exceptions regarding Practice MATCHES, see Section 5.2 – Practice MATCHES." This would allow robots over the height limit to be slightly adjusted in situations like this.
As to 987's height being different than that of their TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION, it has been implied that they started in a different "can-grabbing" configuration that had never been used during the competition. While I cannot verify that this is true, it has also been implied that their robot was inspected and transported with this mechanism lowered.
Whether 987 were disabled before the match or near instantly at the start of the match will probably have to be left to speculation, but I am still of the opinion that G7 was never violated. If indeed they were disabled before the match, I will have to agree that the rules were not followed perfectly, but the result would have been the same as if they were disabled within the first second of the match.
While we will probably never know if 987 was indeed over the height restrictions, I find no reason for G7 to be called. If they were, according to my "picky" reading of the rules, they should have been disabled as soon as the match started as they violated G22. If they were not over 6'6" (which I think is quite possible), the match should have proceeded normally. My point is that according to the current set of rules, there is no room for the referees to have let them remedy the situation.
Even though I wish 987 would have had the chance to at least verify that they were over the height limit or have been told they were going to be disabled, the head referee's decision is final and the head referee decided that they were indeed over the height limit. I would like to see G7, Section A be expanded to "in compliance with all ROBOT and GAME rules, i.e. it has passed Inspection. For exceptions regarding Practice MATCHES, see Section 5.2 – Practice MATCHES." This would allow robots over the height limit to be slightly adjusted in situations like this.
FYI, I believe we did use the can grabber on the main field during practice rounds.We were indeed disabled BEFORE the match. In archived video of Saturday matches linked in relevant thread you can see one of the refs next to the head ref discussing something with him just before the start of the match and also see the head ref turn to the score/control table while the other ref made a "knife across the neck sign shortly before autonomous started (with us already disabled and with no notification to the drive team).
PayneTrain
02-03-2015, 00:42
FYI, I believe we did use the can grabber on the main field during practice rounds.We were indeed disabled BEFORE the match. In archived video of Saturday matches linked in relevant thread you can see one of the refs next to the head ref discussing something with him just before the start of the match and also see the head ref turn to the score/control table while the other ref made a "knife across the neck sign shortly before autonomous started (with us already disabled and with no notification to the drive team).
As an on/off member of a drive team, I find this behavior really concerning. Not communicating with teams is very bad.
IronicDeadBird
02-03-2015, 00:54
This seems to happen every year when it comes to reffing. Most likely due to a common side effect of being human is making mistakes. It is indeed sad, but when it comes down to tough times, someone has to make tough calls. I never envy the person that has to make that call though, but I will always respect the fact that they chose to shoulder the burden.
With referees seemingly taking center stage at multiple events every year (was hoping this year would be an exception..), I have to wonder if this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment) isn't what's going on.
MooreteP
02-03-2015, 08:05
This is used far too often as an excuse as why bad calls don't matter. People: THIS IS A COMPETITION! THE TEAMS ARE HERE TO WIN, AND THEY WANT TO WIN!
Uh,,, no.
Forest vs. trees. Ends and means. Process vs. Result, Project Management.
The teams are here to dance and celebrate the beauty, elegance, and creativity of STEAM education.
This thread could have been closed after JVN's GP comments.
Is anyone else here bothered by the reference to a FEMALE ref?
notmattlythgoe
02-03-2015, 08:54
Uh,,, no.
Forest vs. trees. Ends and means. Process vs. Result, Project Management.
The teams are here to dance and celebrate the beauty, elegance, and creativity of STEAM education.
This thread could have been closed after JVN's GP comments.
Is anyone else here bothered by the reference to a FEMALE ref?
The term FEMALE was used as a descriptor, not as a negative statement. Put the pitchfork down.
kjohnson
02-03-2015, 09:07
Blog post from Frank this morning:
Some of you are aware that two robots participating in the final match at the Dallas Regional were disabled before the match began, and that has generated controversy. We are currently gathering information from folks directly involved in the situation. I will have more to share once the facts are in. I am not pre-judging this particular situation, but at our events we want to ensure all participants are being treated courteously and fairly in accordance with the rules.
Frank
http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprograms/frc/blog-dallas-regional-final-match
JamesTerm
02-03-2015, 10:32
The teams are here to dance and celebrate the beauty, elegance, and creativity of STEAM education.
I'm so glad you called it STEAM... I wish others would accept that as well!
While we will probably never know if 987 was indeed over the height restrictions, I find no reason for G7 to be called. If they were, according to my "picky" reading of the rules, they should have been disabled as soon as the match started as they violated G22. If they were not over 6'6" (which I think is quite possible), the match should have proceeded normally. My point is that according to the current set of rules, there is no room for the referees to have let them remedy the situation.I think we are in approximate agreement. I just wanted to clarify that by "picky", I didn't mean to signify the simple difference between being bypassed at t=-.001s and being disabled at t=+.001s. I intended to highlight that, while the field crew took advantage of the pre-match situation to prove ('prove') that 987 was over-height, the benefit of that same pre-match situation, i.e. being stationary, was not afforded to the team. Rather, the information was deliberately withheld, with no rule indicating whether or not it should be, and used to implement a penalty. This penalty was, at worst and apparently in truth, illegal at t<0s. At best it was potentially legal at t>0s. Would it have been legal at t>0s? I suppose one could argue that the pre-match measurement, which at least in theory could've been out of date at that point (e.g. loss of air pressure), is enough to inform a reasonably astute observer that 987 was still over height in-match. However, the need to measure precisely indicates that this same observer couldn't have made that determination from their actual vantage point at t>0s.
It's this retroactive use of G22 that strikes me as peculiar ("picky"), and I wonder what would lead someone to make such an argument in real time. Of course, we don't know that this was the argument made. It could've potentially been legal at t>0s, if significantly more complex than a G7 version. And yet, if I'm following the rest of this incident correctly, that means that the argument for disabling the over-height robot and the argument for disabling the barely-over-the-landfill robot are entirely separate. So I'm thankful for Frank's blog post.
As far as the rules themselves, I appreciate your proposed G7 change. However, I disagree with your argument that there was no room to allow a quick fix under the current manual. There was no mandate to do so, but that's not the same thing. As far as I can determine (and you seem to be better at this), there is nothing that mandates these pre-match events or the sequence thereof. There would have been nothing illegal about allowing 987 back on to at most press a solenoid or at least be a party/listener to the conversation. Was failing to do this illegal? Apparently not, had the correct order of operations been followed. But do people have a right to be upset that it wasn't done, given doing so also would've been legal?
As it stands, it appears that the only sure, known rule violation is G22 on the penalizing side, and it had no practical consequences. I'd argue this is indicative of a rather severe rules issue, given that their implementation here had such drastic ones.
I'm so glad you called it STEAM... I wish others would accept that as well!I don't. Art is only tangentially if at all related to STEM. Trying to include it in the acronym takes away from the whole purpose of advocating for STEM education.
I don't think there's anything wrong at all with teaching art, but don't try to lump it in where it doesn't belong.
pntbll1313
02-03-2015, 13:55
I don't. Art is only tangentially if at all related to STEM. Trying to include it in the acronym takes away from the whole purpose of advocating for STEM education.
I don't think there's anything wrong at all with teaching art, but don't try to lump it in where it doesn't belong.
Maybe your team name is an acronym or something, but I think your post is a little ironic since you are on team 840 ART ;)
I tend to agree that adding arts into STEM defeats the purpose of the acronym. Adding more letters of curriculum that people think is important will only end up with a giant acronym that essentially means "All education"...
MrForbes
02-03-2015, 14:03
This is a pleasant diversion from the topic of this thread.
I've been on both sides of this....and I really don't mind including art. Good engineering, and good science, seems to include a lot of creativity, which could be argued to be art.
martin417
02-03-2015, 14:08
...While we will probably never know if 987 was indeed over the height restrictions, I find no reason for G7 to be called. If they were, according to my "picky" reading of the rules, they should have been disabled as soon as the match started as they violated G22.
The issue with your logic here is with this statement: "as soon as the match started." Remeber what G7 states:
G7 When placed on the FIELD for a MATCH, each ROBOT must be:
A. in compliance with all ROBOT rules, i.e. it has passed Inspection. For exceptions regarding Practice MATCHES, see Section 5.2 – Practice MATCHES.
B. fully supported by the floor, SCORING PLATFORM, and/or SCORING PLATFORM ramps on their ALLIANCE’S side of the FIELD, and
C. completely outside of their AUTO ZONE and LANDFILL ZONE.
VIOLATION: If fix is a quick remedy, the MATCH won’t start until all requirements are met. If it is not a quick remedy the offending ROBOT will be DISABLED and at the discretion of the Head REFEREE must be re-Inspected.
Note the bold red statement above. It is not ambiguous or unclear. The match should not have started until the quick fix was implemented. For both teams that were disabled for that match.
Siri: I have to agree that the referees could have proceeded to let the situation be corrected. While not required by the rules at this time, I concur that this probably would have been the best course of action. Thanks for discussing this with me. It was quite enjoyable.
martin417: My argument is not that G7 was not followed through correctly. I don't think that 987 violated G7 in the first place, so all requirements were met to start the match. However, as soon as the match started, if 987 was indeed over height, G22 was violated. Either G7 or G22 was applied incorrectly if 987 was disabled before the match began.
...For both teams that were disabled for that match.I don't want this point to get lost in the shuffle. As much as I love 987 and feel for them (congrats on Chairman's) and 148, 2613 (yes? I'm confused) seems to be a clear victim of incorrect G7 enforcement. According to this thread, they were out of compliance with G7c by being slightly over the Landfill, and if a reasonably astute observer honestly doesn't think that pushing a robot forward 1/nth of an inch is a "quick remedy", I would like to meet them.
bstew: and thank you, this has been great. I think we've reach a rather robust conclusion based on available evidence.
EDIT: answer, yes, 2613.
Another clarification, in the interest of stopping misinformation. Several have commented on our alliance calling for a height measurement of 2613. This is not the case.
Immediately before the start of Final 3, 148 alerted our drive team that we believed 2613 was inside the landfill zone.
During the confusion and noise of the situation our drive team thought we were asking about 2613's height, and requested that they be checked. We were told "they are already disabled".
148 asked for a height check.
We at no time advocated that 2613 should be disabled, or removed from the match. 987 was not involved in the specifics of this incident.
Caleb Sykes
02-03-2015, 15:49
I tend to agree that adding arts into STEM defeats the purpose of the acronym. Adding more letters of curriculum that people think is important will only end up with a giant acronym that essentially means "All education"...
My friends and I have had this discussion before. Two of us really love social studies, and another wants to be an English teacher after he gets out of college. Together we came up with the SS STEAMER education
SS: Social Studies
S: Science
T: Technology
E: Engineering
A: Arts
M: Mathematics
E: English
R: Reading
*toot* *toot*
All aboard for a general education!
MooreteP
02-03-2015, 16:00
E: English
R: Reading
*toot* *toot*
All aboard for a general education!
As in Read the Manual?
Citrus Dad
02-03-2015, 16:00
Oh my...
I think that this issue even merited a thread indicates what has been on many people's minds--that in this year's game it can be advantageous to have the third member of the alliance stay off the field. One clear example is the auto movement bonus. Going from a game that required full alliance participation to one that implicitly penalizes full participation is a step backwards.:(
Greg Needel
02-03-2015, 16:14
Another clarification, in the interest of stopping misinformation. Several have commented on our alliance calling for a height measurement of 2613. This is not the case.
Immediately before the start of Final 3, 148 alerted our drive team that we believed 2613 was inside the landfill zone. Our drive team requested that they be checked, and rolled back in compliance with the rule if necessary. We were told "they are already disabled".
We at no time advocated that 2613 should be disabled, or removed from the match. 987 was not involved in the specifics of this incident.
I was sitting on the scoring table side in the front row and everyone around me clearly felt that 148 was calling for a height check.
Kevin was running to the scoring table side of the driver station during the match start countdown screaming "Height Height" at the top of his lungs. Why else would he be doing this?
Technically speaking there is nothing wrong with this action, but you can't deny that it happened.
From my perspective, the blue alliance called for a height check on 2613 (who was already disabled) and got their hand caught in the cookie jar when their own partner was also over height.
I would have liked for both teams to get an extra min to set up so we could have seen a 3v3 finals, but the facts are the facts and skewing them is not productive.
I was sitting on the scoring table side in the front row and everyone around me clearly felt that 148 was calling for a height check.
Kevin was running to the scoring table side of the driver station during the match start countdown screaming "Height Height" at the top of his lungs. Why else would he be doing this?
Technically speaking there is nothing wrong with this action, but you can't deny that it happened.
From my perspective, the blue alliance called for a height check on 2613 (who was already disabled) and got their hand caught in the cookie jar when their own partner was also over height.
I would have liked for both teams to get an extra min to set up so we could have seen a 3v3 finals, but the facts are the facts and skewing them is not productive.
Greg,
Thanks for clarifying. I was the one who signaled Kevin about 2613 being "in the landfill" but as you know things were loud down there, so I did not realize he misheard me, and did not realize what he said in his interaction with the referees. I stand by my statement that we did not advocate in any way for 2613 to be disabled or removed.
I've edited my post, and do not want to skew facts in any way.
However, I do not appreciate your implication that we did that intentionally.
If you have any other concerns about the facts from our alliance's perspective, please PM me. We value unbiased viewpoints of these events.
I'm sure all 6 teams would have preferred to play those matches 3v3. We're excited for the rest of our competition season. :)
JamesTerm
02-03-2015, 16:56
I don't. Art is only tangentially if at all related to STEM. Trying to include it in the acronym takes away from the whole purpose of advocating for STEM education.
I don't think there's anything wrong at all with teaching art, but don't try to lump it in where it doesn't belong.
Art is the original mover...
Watch this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNKS4K1tCto) around 16:40...
Agree or disagree, but you gotta have some respect for Adam Savage.
I see and admire artwork in robots built each year... and appreciate teams taking the time for that.
Greg Needel
02-03-2015, 17:10
Greg,
Thanks for clarifying. I was the one who signaled Kevin about 2613 being "in the landfill" but as you know things were loud down there, so I did not realize he misheard me, and did not realize what he said in his interaction with the referees. I stand by my statement that we did not advocate in any way for 2613 to be disabled or removed.
I've edited my post, and do not want to skew facts in any way.
However, I do not appreciate your implication that we did that intentionally.
If you have any other concerns about the facts from our alliance's perspective, please PM me. We value unbiased viewpoints of these events.
I'm sure all 6 teams would have preferred to play those matches 3v3. We're excited for the rest of our competition season. :)
You are correct that intent is hard to view, I just interpreted what I saw on the field. I should have been more careful and worded my response with much more care. I think that 148 is a great team (with a great robot) and I am sure you guys will have a very successful season regardless of this setback.
I just wish that everyone officiating the events remembered that these events are about celebrating the student accomplishments. While the rules need to exist in order to maintain the integrity of the game, it felt like things were being interpreted to an excessive standpoint at this event. I hope that FIRST/the GDC takes a hard look at Dallas and fixes the wording (and blue boxes) for future events.
the facts are the facts and skewing them is not productive.
Neither is adding hearsay and speculation, being touted as facts, by person not involved with the situation at all. I think it would be appropriate to let the teams and volunteers involved do the talking.
I want to commend 148 for handling this unfortunate situation with both professionalism and class. They didn't even need to comment here, but they took the time to clarify exactly what happened and help sort the facts from rumours. This was very impressive to me, especially at a time when it would be very easy for emotions to boil over. Looking back at the official statements made by JVN on behalf of the team, it makes clear to me why they've developed the reputation as being the most professional team in FIRST.
Thanks to everyone who was directly involved and impacted by this situation for taking the time to help the rest of us understand this weekend. All six teams who played in the finals should be commended here. It's no wonder that four of them are known as being some the best teams in all of FIRST. I've a part of my fair share of controversial matches, on both the winning and losing side, and I understand just how not fun it can be.
I just wish that everyone officiating the events remembered that these events are about celebrating the student accomplishments. While the rules need to exist in order to maintain the integrity of the game, it felt like things were being interpreted to an excessive standpoint at this event. I hope that FIRST/the GDC takes a hard look at Dallas and fixes the wording (and blue boxes) for future events.
This (especially the bolded statement) is something that I hope we can all agree on.
Michael Corsetto
02-03-2015, 17:25
I just wish that everyone officiating the events remembered that these events are about celebrating the student accomplishments. While the rules need to exist in order to maintain the integrity of the game, it felt like things were being interpreted to an excessive standpoint at this event. I hope that FIRST/the GDC takes a hard look at Dallas and fixes the wording (and blue boxes) for future events.
Greg,
I am in the same boat with you on this one. See my post in the Dallas 2015 thread. (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1451502&postcount=114)
However, I do not believe more effective wording and blue boxes will fix the issue. In a game that I believed to be fairly "error-proof" from a referee perspective, the lack of a "Teams FIRST" mentality still results in decisions that negatively impact the teams and students involved.
It is a larger issue than just better rules. A culture shift like this has to start from the top.
-Mike
waialua359
02-03-2015, 18:04
I think that this issue even merited a thread indicates what has been on many people's minds--that in this year's game it can be advantageous to have the third member of the alliance stay off the field. One clear example is the auto movement bonus. Going from a game that required full alliance participation to one that implicitly penalizes full participation is a step backwards.:(
I don't want to stray this thread off a tangent, but felt to comment that it is more advantageous to have all 3 members always on the field. We would no way have been as successful as we were, if one sat out.
Hopefully everybody will understand that the missing 3rd bot in some of the early elimination rounds for both alliances was the result of a calculated effort by both alliances to develop additional capability to grab center cans to boost stack values...not to make additional room for the major bots on the alliances. With a greatly shortened time frame after qualifications and no break after alliance selections there was simply no time before the elimination rounds to complete the modification our 3rd partners to grab cans.
Travis Schuh
02-03-2015, 18:19
I don't want to stray this thread off a tangent, but felt to comment that it is more advantageous to have all 3 members always on the field. We would no way have been as successful as we were, if one sat out.
I was impressed with how many stacks your 2nd pick was able to put up, particularly considering that they were the last pick of the regional. From watching IE and Dallas, I would say your alliance was an outlier in how much the 2nd pick contributed. Just speaks to having good scouting.
I don't want to stray this thread off a tangent, but felt to comment that it is more advantageous to have all 3 members always on the field. We would no way have been as successful as we were, if one sat out.
You may have been lucky enough to have 3 high level robots on your alliance but there is definitely an advantage to two high level teams having no 3rd robot occupying space on the field that would otherwise be clear, if the 3rd robot is not very competitive.
Kevin Sevcik
02-03-2015, 18:29
I just wish that everyone officiating the events remembered that these events are about celebrating the student accomplishments. While the rules need to exist in order to maintain the integrity of the game, it felt like things were being interpreted to an excessive standpoint at this event. I hope that FIRST/the GDC takes a hard look at Dallas and fixes the wording (and blue boxes) for future events.However, I do not believe more effective wording and blue boxes will fix the issue. In a game that I believed to be fairly "error-proof" from a referee perspective, the lack of a "Teams FIRST" mentality still results in decisions that negatively impact the teams and students involved.
It is a larger issue than just better rules. A culture shift like this has to start from the top.
-MikeDo you guys have some on-site knowledge or experience that leads you to think the officials at Dallas didn't care about the teams? Was there evil cackling coming from the volunteer room or something? Were refs taking visible glee in disabling robots whenever they had a chance? I think some FRC specific version of Hanlon's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor) should probably apply to suggestions that volunteers don't care about teams and/or are out to get them.
waialua359
02-03-2015, 18:52
I was impressed with how many stacks your 2nd pick was able to put up, particularly considering that they were the last pick of the regional. From watching IE and Dallas, I would say your alliance was an outlier in how much the 2nd pick contributed. Just speaks to having good scouting.
I texted the selection to both alliance captains prior to the pick. We only had our drive team and me as the lone scouter, who also had to strategize, coach, and coordinate the entire weekend. With that being said, the only list I had was looking straight up at the board. Even the MC was joking about which team I was going to text. Lucky pick. 😄
Do you guys have some on-site knowledge or experience that leads you to think the officials at Dallas didn't care about the teams? Was there evil cackling coming from the volunteer room or something? Were refs taking visible glee in disabling robots whenever they had a chance? I think some FRC specific version of Hanlon's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor) should probably apply to suggestions that volunteers don't care about teams and/or are out to get them.
I knew alot of volunteers who passed up on assignments because of the toxic environment towards them last year. FIRST needs more volunteers this year, not to drive them away.
Greg Needel
02-03-2015, 21:51
Do you guys have some on-site knowledge or experience that leads you to think the officials at Dallas didn't care about the teams? Was there evil cackling coming from the volunteer room or something? Were refs taking visible glee in disabling robots whenever they had a chance? I think some FRC specific version of Hanlon's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor) should probably apply to suggestions that volunteers don't care about teams and/or are out to get them.
Actually I do think that the majority of volunteers (including refs) care about the teams, my problem comes from the way that some of the rules are interpreted and enforced at events. It is really all about the difference between the word of the rule and the intent of the rule.
Take G7 for example.
G7 When placed on the FIELD for a MATCH, each ROBOT must be:
A. in compliance with all ROBOT rules, i.e. it has passed Inspection. For exceptions regarding Practice MATCHES, see Section 5.2 – Practice MATCHES.
B. fully supported by the floor, SCORING PLATFORM, and/or SCORING PLATFORM ramps on their ALLIANCE’S side of the FIELD, and
C. completely outside of their AUTO ZONE and LANDFILL ZONE.
VIOLATION: If fix is a quick remedy, the MATCH won’t start until all requirements are met. If it is not a quick remedy the offending ROBOT will be DISABLED and at the discretion of the Head REFEREE must be re-Inspected.
What was the definition of "quick remedy" used at Dallas? To me just simply adjusting the arms of a robot or bending a piece of metal back should be allowed. While on the other hand if you forget to permanently deploy your code or forget to charge your pneumatics would take to long. If you polled the audience I would bet 99.9% of people would have granted both alliances an extra minute to make their bots on field legal.
That's what I mean by putting the students first. Looking at each situation objectively and always asking "How will the students interpret my decision" and "how will my decision inspire students to keep achieving and pushing themselves" People who volunteer for FIRST are wonderful but sometimes it is easy to forget in that specific moment why we all spend so much time supporting this organization.
TexanMagician
02-03-2015, 22:23
Having been on the sidelines, I overheard the conversations of several students on both alliances.
I heard cries of frustration and anger from the students on 118 and 624 when 148 and 987 were not allowed to enter the field and disabled respectively in the semifinals.
I heard the same students feel excitement but disappointment at the same time when they won the 3rd finals match, wishing for an "actual" match, win or lose. Immediately afterwards, I saw students from 148 and 987 congratulate the winning alliance, and even assuring them their win was 100% deserved.
Never before have I seen students on any robotics team act so professionally, and it is quite a stark contrast with the behaviors of many of the adults both at the event and on the forums of Chief Delphi and the chat of the livestream.
It is quite unfortunate that many people chose to discredit the winning alliance with the fact that 987 was disabled. From my point of view, both alliances looked incredibly strong. The second seed had pulled off wins against the first seed in both the last semifinal and the first final, with all robots functioning. According to the announcer, Team 118 had even broken something on their robot and was running around with three wheels for the finals. It is unfair to the winners to write them off as victorious simply because 987 was disabled in the last match - 2613, a hidden part of their strategy, was also disabled. As shown in the second final, both 148 and 987 are incredible machines, and I am sure they will pull an even more dominating performance in Las Vegas.
Actually I do think that the majority of volunteers (including refs) care about the teams, my problem comes from the way that some of the rules are interpreted and enforced at events. It is really all about the difference between the word of the rule and the intent of the rule.
This.
As a ref this year, and for last year, making calls can be hard. You want to make them fairly, but you also want the kids to enjoy their experience. I don't have a team anymore to actively "care" about, however that doesn't mean I don't care about teams in general.
At the events I ref at we always err in favor of the team. Can't tell if they tripped slightly out of the driver's station? No foul. Need to adjust robot slightly to be within rules? Yes, we want everyone to be able to compete.
We're missing the real world message that needs to be delivered. If your product is outside the customer's specifications, you might not hear about it from them until the purchase order is cut. To your competition.
Regards,
Tim
Art is the original mover...
Watch this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNKS4K1tCto) around 16:40...
Agree or disagree, but you gotta have some respect for Adam Savage.
I see and admire artwork in robots built each year... and appreciate teams taking the time for that.
I reject Obama's reality and substitute it with my own.
Sorry, I had to do that, 16:40 is where Mr. Savage went political.
Tim
JamesTerm
03-03-2015, 06:41
I reject Obama's reality and substitute it with my own.
Sorry, I had to do that, 16:40 is where Mr. Savage went political.
Tim
Touché...
FWIW I picked 1640, because it's an easy number for me to remember... it's both the major diameter of an 8-32, and a number of a very cool team. (Hi Siri)
We're missing the real world message that needs to be delivered. If your product is outside the customer's specifications, you might not hear about it from them until the purchase order is cut. To your competition.
Regards,
Tim
Actually, I think that if there is a real world message that needs to be delivered here, it's something closer to the fact that following the rules (laws) as written is the responsibility of the authorities, and if those rules are bent or applied unjustly then you as the affected party should expect something better (and, in the real world, have the legal channels to argue so).
We seem to be forgetting how the system (the FRC rules) instructs a situation to be handled in favor of summary judgment and "tough luck, kid" responses over two pedantic violations. The rules as written, in this case, are pretty straightforward. That they are or are not followed is a far greater issue than teaching everyone some draconian lesson.
Kevin Sevcik
03-03-2015, 11:58
What was the definition of "quick remedy" used at Dallas? To me just simply adjusting the arms of a robot or bending a piece of metal back should be allowed. While on the other hand if you forget to permanently deploy your code or forget to charge your pneumatics would take to long. If you polled the audience I would bet 99.9% of people would have granted both alliances an extra minute to make their bots on field legal.
That's what I mean by putting the students first. Looking at each situation objectively and always asking "How will the students interpret my decision" and "how will my decision inspire students to keep achieving and pushing themselves" People who volunteer for FIRST are wonderful but sometimes it is easy to forget in that specific moment why we all spend so much time supporting this organization.*whips out Hanlon's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor)* Once again, do you guys have some on-site knowledge that said volunteers had lost their way and were regularly ignoring team concerns? The circumstances of the final match were pretty rotten, but one incident shouldn't be used to denigrate the refs' behavior for the entire event unless it's extraordinarily egregious. The specific circumstances of F-3 are probably a far better explanation.
Saturday at Dallas had to be extremely stressful for refs and volunteers. Thanks to weather, you started 2 hours late with a boatload of matches to make up. You ran straight through lunch. Whatever breaks those refs got for food etc. were bound to be short. That final match was played at 8:30PM. 8:30PM, with awards left and a regional to tear down by midnight to avoid an extra day's rental fee. I don't know about you, but even on a normal day, my brain's typically given up for the day by then.
So, unless there were incidents the entire weekend of refs needlessly penalizing teams for easily corrected problems, I don't think it's warranted to declare there's a problem with the general attitude of the refs. The more likely explanation for F-3 is the refs were tired, hungry, stressed, under a time-crunch, and confused the penalties for G7 and G10. After all, they'd just called some G10 violations, and G10 decidedly doesn't have any quick-fix remedy.
To my mind, the least excusable thing was that they didn't inform 987 of the disable. That communication breakdown is something that should be investigated, and the goal of "always communicate penalties/enforcements to teams" is a LOT more achievable than "always perfectly enforce the rules, but give teams the benefit of the doubt, except when you shouldn't".
Also I hope people here are honest enough with themselves to realize they're often asking for "always perfectly enforce the rules, but give teams the benefit of the doubt, except when you shouldn't". Because CD is always full of complaints of too strict/too lax enforcement and of teams getting away with stuff/not being given the benefit of the doubt.
Kevin Sevcik
03-03-2015, 12:17
We're missing the real world message that needs to be delivered. If your product is outside the customer's specifications, you might not hear about it from them until the purchase order is cut. To your competition.
Regards,
TimI have two things to say to this:
1. FRC has a competitor? I suppose VRC and VRC-U are the closest things to competition for FRC. (Someone correct me if there's another HS-level challenge of FRC caliber and size.) I'm skeptical that well-funded, highly ranked teams are going to abandon FRC en masse for VRC, since most (all?) of them already have VRC teams. For better or worse, FRC currently has the monopoly on the big, fast, hard high school engineering challenge market.
2. You know that whole motto of you get what you pay for? You're not paying for professional staff to entirely run and officiate the events. You're paying for volunteers to largely run the events under a (sometimes) paid regional director and a handful of other paid staffers. You're definitely not paying for an officiating crew. Just looking at regionals (FiM can do their own math), you'd need 12 crews to cover this season. Assume a 5 person crew, and $20k for full time reffing and training for the FRC season. That's $1.2 million. Divide that by the number of plays at regional this year and you get something like an extra $400 per play. So go petition HQ to raise everyone's fees by $500 and hire professional refs for the season, and then we can talk about not meeting customer specifications. After all, sometimes you have to tell the customer they can't afford everything they want.
Steven Smith
03-03-2015, 12:24
One thing I'd like to see incorporated in big decisions like these... and I don't think you need a blue box or several page document to explain what a "big decision" is... is to just get the teams' input.
Based on the comments from both alliances, I imagine that the refs could have easily called the alliance captain coaches from either side, explained the situation, and asked what they wanted to do. Chances are, an alliance captain in the final event might know the rules as well as the ref, and can say "hey, the rule says they get a minute to fix it"... everyone agrees, and they continue. Or perhaps, it's more egregious, but the benefiting alliance decides they'd rather play a real match than take a free win.
I hate to see an us vs. them attitude between teams and FIRST Volunteers/Staff... because they are often the same people filling dual roles, or at the very least they are the same cut of people that are there for the same reasons (inspire students and enjoy robots). Surely, just talking out an issue like this would be more likely to come to an agreeable decision.
I have two things to say to this:
1. FRC has a competitor? I suppose VRC and VRC-U are the closest things to competition for FRC. (Someone correct me if there's another HS-level challenge of FRC caliber and size.) I'm skeptical that well-funded, highly ranked teams are going to abandon FRC en masse for VRC, since most (all?) of them already have VRC teams. For better or worse, FRC currently has the monopoly on the big, fast, hard high school engineering challenge market.
2. You know that whole motto of you get what you pay for? You're not paying for professional staff to entirely run and officiate the events. You're paying for volunteers to largely run the events under a (sometimes) paid regional director and a handful of other paid staffers. You're definitely not paying for an officiating crew. Just looking at regionals (FiM can do their own math), you'd need 12 crews to cover this season. Assume a 5 person crew, and $20k for full time reffing and training for the FRC season. That's $1.2 million. Divide that by the number of plays at regional this year and you get something like an extra $400 per play. So go petition HQ to raise everyone's fees by $500 and hire professional refs for the season, and then we can talk about not meeting customer specifications. After all, sometimes you have to tell the customer they can't afford everything they want.
I'm pretty surge that post was meant to say that in the real world, you won't be warned that your product (the robots, not the competition) is out of spec until it's too late.
IronicDeadBird
03-03-2015, 12:28
I'm pretty surge that post was meant to say that in the real world, you won't be warned that your product (the robots, not the competition) is out of spec until it's too late.
And in the real world when you have passed inspection and have to punch out a recall things really go down hill...
AdamHeard
03-03-2015, 12:29
I have two things to say to this:
1. FRC has a competitor? I suppose VRC and VRC-U are the closest things to competition for FRC. (Someone correct me if there's another HS-level challenge of FRC caliber and size.) I'm skeptical that well-funded, highly ranked teams are going to abandon FRC en masse for VRC, since most (all?) of them already have VRC teams. For better or worse, FRC currently has the monopoly on the big, fast, hard high school engineering challenge market.
2. You know that whole motto of you get what you pay for? You're not paying for professional staff to entirely run and officiate the events. You're paying for volunteers to largely run the events under a (sometimes) paid regional director and a handful of other paid staffers. You're definitely not paying for an officiating crew. Just looking at regionals (FiM can do their own math), you'd need 12 crews to cover this season. Assume a 5 person crew, and $20k for full time reffing and training for the FRC season. That's $1.2 million. Divide that by the number of plays at regional this year and you get something like an extra $400 per play. So go petition HQ to raise everyone's fees by $500 and hire professional refs for the season, and then we can talk about not meeting customer specifications. After all, sometimes you have to tell the customer they can't afford everything they want.
I'd pay $500 for that.
I'd first argue that FIRST should instead find a way to be a tad more efficient with money (considering FIRST isn't covering event costs anyway).
Divide that by the number of plays at regional this year and you get something like an extra $400 per play. So go petition HQ to raise everyone's fees by $500 and hire professional refs for the season, and then we can talk about not meeting customer specifications. After all, sometimes you have to tell the customer they can't afford everything they want.
With how much money registration for regionals already is, this almost seems like a drop in the bucket to the 4000-6000$ we're already paying for a regional. I know that money also goes to the kit of parts, but I always thought that a lot of that was donated, also, the second registration fee doesn't cover KOP, so that 4000$ per regional.
I don't know and I don't have time to find out today where the rest of that money goes, but it seems to me like we're paying a lot for what we're getting, and if an extra 500$ would make it better, that might be worth paying.
However, I'm not sure if a paid staff would actually solve anything; it might make it worse. Right now, our amazing volunteers volunteer because they love the program and want to make it the best they can, they just don't operate perfectly under stress(and I see no reason to believe that paid people would be better for this). If we paid people, they would probably enforce the rules more harshly, which in this case would help, but in many cases, I think stricter enforcement of rules could cause more problems if they don't keep in mind the mission: For Inspiration and Recognition of Science and Technology.
Our volunteers usually do a good job keeping this in mind, they just have minor lapses every once and a while, and I think the best method of action is to have reminders of that mission every once and a while, maybe with concrete examples on where rules can be bent(or followed more closely, in this case) to inspire students. I know that the volunteers have the teams' best interests at heart, but sometimes, in such a stressful time, they don't think with their heart
2. You know that whole motto of you get what you pay for? You're not paying for professional staff to entirely run and officiate the events. You're paying for volunteers to largely run the events under a (sometimes) paid regional director and a handful of other paid staffers. You're definitely not paying for an officiating crew. Just looking at regionals (FiM can do their own math), you'd need 12 crews to cover this season. Assume a 5 person crew, and $20k for full time reffing and training for the FRC season. That's $1.2 million. Divide that by the number of plays at regional this year and you get something like an extra $400 per play. So go petition HQ to raise everyone's fees by $500 and hire professional refs for the season, and then we can talk about not meeting customer specifications. After all, sometimes you have to tell the customer they can't afford everything they want.
Sign me up to be a ref. Some back of the napkin calculations suggest you want refs to be paid around $50/hr.
Say they work 8 weeks, 3 days a week, 9 hours a day, and then double that for good measure to account for training, travel, errors in guestimating, etc. You're only at 432 hours per person for a total of $46/hr.
I'd argue you could probably pay refs $20/hr or less...but I'm still not convinced you even need to pay them. I would not at all be opposed to paying head refs, because 90% of the time they are the ones driving a decision for or against a team and it's a lot easier to ensure consistency and proper training amongst 12 people than 60-70.
Paul Copioli
03-03-2015, 13:48
Kevin,
I will send you a PM with the details from my team's point of view. It is not fair to the many volunteers at Dallas that were cordial and friendly, but there were some that just simply shouldn't be volunteering at these events ever again.
And it wasn't just during the finals. The finals incident is the one getting the PR, but it was merely a symptom of a bigger issue.
Paul
wireties
03-03-2015, 14:04
It is not fair to the many volunteers at Dallas that were cordial and friendly, but there were some that just simply shouldn't be volunteering at these events ever again.
And it wasn't just during the finals. The finals incident is the one getting the PR, but it was merely a symptom of a bigger issue.
Paul
This was also our experience - kinda disturbing.
plnyyanks
03-03-2015, 14:17
I will send you a PM with the details from my team's point of view. It is not fair to the many volunteers at Dallas that were cordial and friendly, but there were some that just simply shouldn't be volunteering at these events ever again.
This was also our experience - kinda disturbing.
These things are so disappointing for me to hear as a young volunteer. Maybe it's just because I've been through 4 years on a team and "get it" when it comes to what they're facing, but I could never imagine doing anything less than the maximum to get teams to play. I volunteer at events because I want to help other students be inspired in the same way I was, not for any other reason.
It's upsetting to me that this is a problem, and that there is no easy solution.
Kevin Sevcik
03-03-2015, 15:02
Kevin,
I will send you a PM with the details from my team's point of view. It is not fair to the many volunteers at Dallas that were cordial and friendly, but there were some that just simply shouldn't be volunteering at these events ever again.
And it wasn't just during the finals. The finals incident is the one getting the PR, but it was merely a symptom of a bigger issue.
PaulLooking forward (ish) to the PM. I'll agree that problem volunteers are certainly a possibility, as I've had run-ins with them before. Up to having one re-assigned and/or banned for a history of bad team interactions and one rather inappropriate comment to my students. As you've noted, the semis/finals incidents are getting the PR, and I'm concerned we're extrapolating a whole pattern of behavior from two high-profile incidents.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.