View Full Version : In b4 buttongate
As if UNH district finals couldn't get more weird...
I'll bite, what are you talking about? I'm 1800 miles away ......
I'll bite, what are you talking about? I'm 1800 miles away ......
During the UNH District Event finals, a human player's button fell off, went through the chute, and ended up beneath the tote. When the stack was placed on the platform, the button was wedged underneath the stack. The rules state that the stack must be "completely" supported by totes to count, so the stack did not count.
I am not sure if that had any effect on the outcome of the match, but the whole thing was very bizarre.
i would very much like to see this, is there any video uploaded (or going to be uploaded soon?)
i would very much like to see this, is there any video uploaded (or going to be uploaded soon?)
Got a pic from a ref, will try to post.
rich2202
22-03-2015, 17:34
I'm surprised at:
1) The button made it from the Chute to the Scoring Platform; and
2) The Ref's saw the button under the stack.
In any case, the rule is the rule. Nothing can be between the Tote and the Platform except for another Tote.
http://imgur.com/1J0dSZD
just wow, how does that happen? also, did the HP get a foul for not having a button on?:rolleyes:
I would have thought they'd get a foul for putting something other than a tote through the human feeder chute.
I would have thought they'd get a foul for putting something other than a tote through the human feeder chute.
No foul listed. And not having the button is a fix-it penalty, not a points penalty.
Drew4564
22-03-2015, 18:32
just wow, how does that happen? also, did the HP get a foul for not having a button on?:rolleyes:
I was the operator for the robot who built the buttoned stack, so I (rather unfortunately) saw it all happen. In my HP's rushing around, the button (which was at about mid-tote-chute height) popped off and happened to land right in the chute behind a tote. Nobody noticed until it flew out the chute and found a snuggly spot in the bottom of our six stack. We scored and capped it, hoping it wouldn't matter, but in the back of our minds we knew it wouldn't end well.
Luckily, there were no fouls! I think we were all way too confused and surprised to think about it, I know I was :p
JBeaulier
22-03-2015, 18:44
THE button
Collin4564
22-03-2015, 18:54
I am the human player from 4564. The button was one of the funniest things that has happened to me in FIRST. I thought you may want to see the button! I am #buttongate
Jay O'Donnell
22-03-2015, 19:25
Also to note, this was a replay of match 1. The first match was stopped due to all of the lights going out in the middle of that match. This was followed by a 142-141 finish in finals match two. Such a fun, entertaining way to end an event.
For what it is worth, Counting the stack would not have changed the outcome. Instead of 155 to 84 it would have been 155 to 126. Congratulations Team 133, BERT, 213, The Dirty Birds and 501, The Power Knights! The 142-141 finale was awesome! This event had a plethora of high scores and terrific robots. I am looking forward to seeing and working with all the teams again at WPI for the District Championship.
Caleb McCune
23-03-2015, 10:08
Surprised that Chief Delphi isn't exploding over this right now.
Surprised that Chief Delphi isn't exploding over this right now.
Unlike Dallas there is proof. Picture worth a thousand wild opinions.
ArtemusMaximus
23-03-2015, 10:43
During the UNH District Event finals, a human player's button fell off, went through the chute, and ended up beneath the tote. When the stack was placed on the platform, the button was wedged underneath the stack. The rules state that the stack must be "completely" supported by totes to count, so the stack did not count.
I am not sure if that had any effect on the outcome of the match, but the whole thing was very bizarre.
This to me is a good example of Bureaucratic ruling.
This to me is a good example of Bureaucratic ruling.
Not sure what you mean here - the rules (and Q&A - in particular Q439) make it very clear that "support" is only transitive through other TOTES - not any other object that may be on the FIELD, regardless of whether it was intended to be there or not. Is this a literal interpretation of that? Yes, but if you start reading things into the rules that aren't there, then they become sort of "guidelines", not rules.
If I were a ref (which I'm not) the deciding factor for me would be if I could easily dislodge that button from the stack - i.e. is it just there on the edge of a TOTE, or is it really wedged in there? If the former, it scores - there is unambiguously no support being provided by the button. If the latter, then it doesn't score. From the picture, it could go either way. Of course, I defer to the ref at the match for the ruling, which was that it didn't score.
BrendanB
23-03-2015, 11:11
It should be noted that Frank Merrick was field side while the refs were discussing so the refs weren't coming to their own conclusion and they have to follow the rules put before them even if it might seem silly. The refs at UNH were extremely consistent with upholding the rule book including clarifying the rules when "can wars" started dictating who placed robots first.
While an honest mistake the rules are the rules and at the end of the day the decision had no bearing on the outcome of the match. Thanks to 58, 126, 133, 213, 501, and 4564 for making for an exciting finals match up.
jvriezen
23-03-2015, 11:29
If I were a ref (which I'm not) the deciding factor for me would be if I could easily dislodge that button from the stack - i.e. is it just there on the edge of a TOTE, or is it really wedged in there? If the former, it scores - there is unambiguously no support being provided by the button. If the latter, then it doesn't score. From the picture, it could go either way. Of course, I defer to the ref at the match for the ruling, which was that it didn't score.
Quite clear from the picture (look at the gaps between totes, left and right, upper and lower) that the button is supporting the totes above it.
IronicDeadBird
23-03-2015, 11:37
Quite clear from the picture (look at the gaps between totes, left and right, upper and lower) that the button is supporting the totes above it.
While true that it shows a button supporting a stack. There is no part of the picture that indicates that it is the stack in question. As far as I am concerned its just a stack of totes with a button on a scoring platform on red carpet. Either way the stack itself wouldn't have changed the outcome of the match, and I believe (I don't know for certain) but I believe that the intent of the strict definitions of scored objects being supported is to prevent teams from engineering a way to artificially increase the scoring level on a bin. Again I have no way of proving that.
BrendanB
23-03-2015, 11:39
While true that it shows a button supporting a stack. There is no part of the picture that indicates that it is the stack in question. As far as I am concerned its just a stack of totes with a button on a scoring platform on red carpet. Either way the stack itself wouldn't have changed the outcome of the match, and I believe (I don't know for certain) but I believe that the intent of the strict definitions of scored objects being supported is to prevent teams from engineering a way to artificially increase the scoring level on a bin. Again I have no way of proving that.
Can confirm that is the stack in question.
GreyingJay
23-03-2015, 11:42
I believe that the intent of the strict definitions of scored objects being supported is to prevent teams from engineering a way to artificially increase the scoring level on a bin. Again I have no way of proving that.
I would imagine it would prevent you, for example, from encasing a pile of totes inside your robot, driving the whole mess onto the scoring platform, and parking there. See? Totes are on the platform! Or building a cage that stored a bunch of totes and then sliding the whole cage onto the platform. Or a ramp, bridge, or other shenanigans of the sort.
I think it was primarily meant to acknowledge that litter would be strewn all over the field and that one of the challenges would be to make sure the tote was not stacked on top of litter (allowing this could also be a safety issue if the stack became unstable).
A button that accidentally fell down, though? That seems like bureaucratic ruling to me. A lot of the rules in the handbook say "The INTENT of this rule is to ___ while making exceptions for ___", this could have been one of them.
IronicDeadBird
23-03-2015, 11:51
I would imagine it would prevent you, for example, from encasing a pile of totes inside your robot, driving the whole mess onto the scoring platform, and parking there. See? Totes are on the platform! Or building a cage that stored a bunch of totes and then sliding the whole cage onto the platform. Or a ramp, bridge, or other shenanigans of the sort.
I think it was primarily meant to acknowledge that litter would be strewn all over the field and that one of the challenges would be to make sure the tote was not stacked on top of litter (allowing this could also be a safety issue if the stack became unstable).
A button that accidentally fell down, though? That seems like bureaucratic ruling to me. A lot of the rules in the handbook say "The INTENT of this rule is to ___ while making exceptions for ___", this could have been one of them.
When you start making exceptions to rules based on circumstance you devalue the rules and those who enforce them.
GreyingJay
23-03-2015, 12:27
When you start making exceptions to rules based on circumstance you devalue the rules and those who enforce them.
True, and going by this, the judgement in the button scenario was valid and correct.
I'm just saying that the rule could have been worded differently. For example, G25 says "ROBOTS may not intentionally detach or leave parts on the FIELD" but then the blue box clarifies that "G25 is not intended to penalize ROBOTS that encounter accidental breakage (e.g. a failed MECHANISM that falls off), as those actions are not intentional."
They could have worded the "fully supported" rule differently. Granted it would probably be futile trying to define what was OK and what was not, hence the all-sweeping rule.
ArtemusMaximus
23-03-2015, 12:36
Not sure what you mean here - the rules (and Q&A - in particular Q439) make it very clear that "support" is only transitive through other TOTES - not any other object that may be on the FIELD, regardless of whether it was intended to be there or not. Is this a literal interpretation of that? Yes, but if you start reading things into the rules that aren't there, then they become sort of "guidelines", not rules.
If I were a ref (which I'm not) the deciding factor for me would be if I could easily dislodge that button from the stack - i.e. is it just there on the edge of a TOTE, or is it really wedged in there? If the former, it scores - there is unambiguously no support being provided by the button. If the latter, then it doesn't score. From the picture, it could go either way. Of course, I defer to the ref at the match for the ruling, which was that it didn't score.
What I meant by Bureaucratic is this:
Overly concerned with procedure at the expense of efficiency or common sense.
For what it is worth, Counting the stack would not have changed the outcome. Instead of 155 to 84 it would have been 155 to 126. Congratulations Team 133, BERT, 213, The Dirty Birds and 501, The Power Knights! The 142-141 finale was awesome! This event had a plethora of high scores and terrific robots. I am looking forward to seeing and working with all the teams again at WPI for the District Championship.
While an honest mistake the rules are the rules and at the end of the day the decision had no bearing on the outcome of the match. Thanks to 58, 126, 133, 213, 501, and 4564 for making for an exciting finals match up.
Yes, agreed, very exciting final matches!
Thanks to everyone who participated and congratulations to all the teams.
Too bad about the button thing, that was unfortunate, but as bob mentioned, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of that match.
The UNH District was a HOOT!
Interesting.
It's a sad thing to occur but the rules are very clear on this and I think the call was fair. It didn't determine the outcome of the match so there shouldn't be too much drama over it, thanks for sharing.
DirtyBird213
23-03-2015, 21:33
For what it is worth, Counting the stack would not have changed the outcome. Instead of 155 to 84 it would have been 155 to 126. Congratulations Team 133, BERT, 213, The Dirty Birds and 501, The Power Knights! The 142-141 finale was awesome! This event had a plethora of high scores and terrific robots. I am looking forward to seeing and working with all the teams again at WPI for the District Championship.
Thanks for a great match..... For all the craziness it was amazing to finally get one under our belts. My 21st year with Dirty Birds and finally got a banner. Team of 8 that stuck with it!
On to WPI....Think DIRTY (Dirty Birds)
Kingofl337
24-03-2015, 10:50
Thanks to everyone who played in the finals and there keeping cool on both alliances. Thanks to Bert for assembling the alliance of misfit robots 501 and 213.
Also, a big thanks to Abby! She was the head ref who had to deal with this odd circumstance. As, a previous ref, I can assure you none of the training/testing accounted for this kind of thing.
Skragnoth
24-03-2015, 14:46
A big thank you to Teams 213 and 501 for being such great alliance partners!
Our scouting team did an amazing job in identifying the teams that would compliment our strengths and weaknesses perfectly to build a powerhouse alliance. Who would have thought that the #6 alliance captain picking the #30 seed and #33 seed would be a force to be reckoned with! It just goes to show that you can't trust the rankings and having good scouting is key.
We had a blast at UNH and can't wait to see you guys at WPI!
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.