The Fraud of FTC Worlds - How FTC & FIRST have failed me forever.

[ksafin]

Hi everyone. This is going to be a very long and detailed post, but I urge you to read this in its entirety because I hope it will be very eye-opening as to a subtle but enormous fraud that happened at FTC worlds.

Let me start by prefacing this post with note. I am not a member of FTC Team 5257; I am the founder and an alumi. I love FTC/FIRST dearly, and I came to FTC worlds to support my team and be in the middle of it all once again. I am disclosing the information in this post on my own volition because I feel it needs to be shared. My feelings and what I say are not necessarily representative of the feelings of members of FTC Team 5257 and are solely mine. Therefore, anything in this post is not condoned by the team, but only by myself.

The Story:

This story is regarding FTC Edison Division Semi-Finals match 3. We, ERX, are paired with Cougar Robotics, going against an alliance including Masquerade and Tesla. The record is 1-1, so a third match is forced.
Here is a video of the match, please feel free to forward to the tele-op period at https://youtu.be/5d3UuzGS5Lk?t=301.

Pay attention to Tesla's robot on the bottom left of the field as it manipulates the 90cm goal. Pay special attention to where we, ERX, and Cougars robots are. If you go to 5:20 (https://youtu.be/5d3UuzGS5Lk?t=319) and wait four seconds, you'll see Tesla drop their 90cm goal by moving up their intake.

If you watch till the end of the game and look at the tubes, I think you'll conclude that it's obvious that the red alliance won the match.

Here's where it starts. Our team cheers, excited about the match. I go to the bathroom and come back to see the score posted on the board. 855 - 600, Blue alliance wins.

My mind was boggled. What happened? How could this have happened?
As it turns out, the dropping of the 90cm goal was blamed on the red alliance. We were given a major penalty and the blue alliance was credited with a full 90cm goal.

Did the red alliance drop the goal? No. It's obvious in the footage. Here's where I add the fact that YES, I'm fully aware that video footage and replay is not allowed to be shown to referees to contest a call.

We were aware of this, and despite telling them a wrong call was made, we knew we wouldn't get much out of this.

We appealed to the gracious professionalism in the students from Tesla and Masquerade. We showed all of them the video. They all agreed - the call was wrong. We didn't tip over their goal. They did.

After some haggling, we got them to agree to talk to the referees with us. We went to head ref. Not just ERX. Not just cougars. We all went. All four teams from the match. The entirety of both alliances went to the referees. All four teams said the call was wrong. We weren't even asking for an adjustment of the score. We were asking for a rematch.

The answer? No. Why? My understanding was that it was to save time. They couldn't spare 5 minutes to correct an enormous injustice. They were saving face and saving the tournament five minutes by completely shafting our alliance. We spent 7 months developing this robot and getting to this stage to be shut out for the purpose of saving five minutes.

Not to mention - four teams, opposite alliances, all agreeing on the false call and asking a ref for a rematch? That's an enormous show of gracious professionalism, and I couldn't respect them more for that. It was amazing. And we were told no? Make your own judgement about what degree of ungraciously professional that is.

After we have haggled the head ref in excess of ten times trying to get this correct without avail, we were giving up. They were told to proceed to the other field to set up for division finals. We asked them to protest and refuse to go to the field and set up. They would have to give us a rematch.

I have complete and utter respect for most of the students on those teams. They agreed with us, and didn't want to win the match the way that it was won.

Instead, parents and coaches from the two teams (not all of them, but a sizeable and vocal group) said to forget it, ignore the call, let it happen, and proceed to the finals.

One driver from one of the teams had a "Ask me about my gracious professionalism pin" on his shirt. When his coach told him to ignore what happened and move on, he took it off and put it face down on the tables by the field. I was blown away by this.

In light of all of this injustice, it was the students on the teams that were more mature and just than the adults governing the teams. They could learn a thing or two from the students. That was upsetting to me.

That was the end. We were dealt a huge injustice, challenged it in unison, denied, and then forced out of contention.

I started our FTC team four years ago. I started our FRC team too. We also started another FTC team after our first year. I graduated from High School in love with FIRST, determined to come back every year, support it in every capacity, and do everything I can to start more teams, get more people engaged, and share how wonderful it is.

Something happened at worlds this year for me. FTC failed me. FIRST failed me. People failed me. Gracious professionalism failed me.

The whole system failed me.
Forever.

[smurfgirl]

Unfortunately, it happens. There can be a lot going on at once on the field and refs are human, we can miss things and make mistakes. The rules don't allow video evidence, so there is no way to apply that. If mistakes are recognized, they are generally corrected at regional events, but in my experience, it seems that at the highest levels at the championship, there are no match replays - for "the sake of the show".

All the way back in 2008, my FRC team experienced what I believe was an unfair call on Einstein. I talked to the Head Ref about it and he agreed with my interpretation, but he told me that's just how it goes - they don't do replays on Einstein because it ruins the flow of the show.

I won't tell you that wasn't upsetting to me, because it was, but ultimately it didn't take anything away from what I got out of my experience in FIRST. You just have to move past it. If anything, let your experience inspire you to become a volunteer - it's hard to appreciate everything that goes on behind the scenes until you've been there yourself.

Edit: To be clear, I am not trying to excuse ignoring bad calls that change the outcomes of matches and tournaments. But at this point, I have recognized that I have no power to change the way it's done at the Championship. In my experience at Regionals and Districts, everyone has been quite reasonable in recognizing when a mistake has been made and remedying it.

[mrnoble]

A small group of people, 10? 15? out of tens of thousands around the world, failed to make the right choice in the heat of competition. Not FTC, not FIRST. And not forever.

I sympathize, I really do. My FRC team got dealt some blows over the years, including some that radically altered our chances to win events, and which included bad mistakes by referees, and selfish choices by opposing team members (usually adults). But that is life, actually, and I and the team moved on and have built on our experiences to new levels of success.

I hope you can move on, and that your team can move on, and that they will keep competing. There is no competition in robotics, anywhere, that is immune to such things happening; in fact, this stuff (and much worse) happens everywhere, all the time. But we can't just say "X failed me forever" and quit; eventually we will run out of things to quit from. And FIRST, in spite of its failings, is one of the best things going for our students.

My 2c.

[popnbrown]

Something happened at worlds this year for me

What happened to you and your team, hearing it from your perspective, sounds unfair. While I understand what you're feeling, I cannot make a judgement here without hearing the other side. However, I hope you consider what I have to say


FTC failed me. FIRST failed me. People failed me. Gracious professionalism failed me.

The whole system failed me.
Forever.

Take a few deep breaths. I know you're pissed, and angry, and upset. Frankly, from what you've said, you likely have a right to be. Sometimes things like this happen, I can't speak of any such personal experience with FIRST but I've experienced being unfairly (at least I thought so) treated.

But I don't believe what you've said above is true. In fact, if anything it's likely why you feel so upset and angry. Your passion, your leadership, enabled all of the students on FTC Team 5257 to get where they are and it's an opportunity that you or they would not have had without FIRST. Just because a few individuals made a wrong call does not mean that you need to give up on the organization and its values as a whole.

In fact, take this passion of yours, remember how you and those students felt, and make positive change.

Go volunteer at FIRST events (and beyond) to make sure that teams (and people) get the correct recognition they deserve. Go mentor, and make sure that when your team sees another that's being treated unfairly, you stand by their side.

You are a leader of your FRC team, and a founder of your FTC team. Whether or not it's obvious, other students may be looking up to you, and a time like this where everyone's hurt and a lot of emotions are flying, it's important to make sure that you lead and act the way you want others to act.

I wish I could offer you a quick and easy answer to help you but only you CAN be the change that you seek.

[pastelpony]

Unfortunately, human error is inevitable. No way around that.

[T^2]

Unfortunately, human error is inevitable. No way around that.

This is horse manure. The whole point of being an engineer is to overcome the inadequacies of nature, particularly human nature. In this case, the people in charge of the match made an error, were given a chance to fix that error, and willfully ignored that chance. That is wrong. To not try to correct one's mistakes is the mark of an immoral creature.

[saikiranra]

It seems like the overarching problem is teams not being able to question scores they received, whether in FRC or FTC. Every season there is some controversy about a bad call or a score miscount, and I don't know if any measures have been taken to mitigate this problem. FLL makes students check their scores before they are submitted and it seems like a viable solution for FRC/FTC.

Referees are volunteers who take time out of their lives to help with this competition, and I don't think it is fair for them when they get called out later on with match video on a public platform for a bad call they made with good intentions. Some sort of process in which teams can check the scores and penalties before they are finalized or can retroactively modify them with some proof (even if it's only in place during playoffs/elims) would be beneficial for all parties.

[wilsonmw04]

This is horse manure. The whole point of being an engineer is to overcome the inadequacies of nature, particularly human nature. In this case, the people in charge of the match made an error, were given a chance to fix that error, and willfully ignored that chance. That is wrong. To not try to correct one's mistakes is the mark of an immoral creature.

Manure? Hmm, it's also stinky to insult someone without knowing all the facts. We have one side of the story. Mistakes happen. How you handle a situation like this says more about you than those who caused it.

[Pretzel]

Referees are volunteers who take time out of their lives to help with this competition, and I don't think it is fair for them when they get called out later on with match video on a public platform for a bad call they made with good intentions. Some sort of process in which teams can check the scores and penalties before they are finalized or can retroactively modify them with some proof (even if it's only in place during playoffs/elims) would be beneficial for all parties.
Then allow referees to review match video during the elimination matches. It would save a lot of headaches without adding too much time since disputes like this are usually far and few between.

I can understand disallowing video replays for qualification matches so that events can be run in a timely manner, but in any sort of elimination match the scores and calls really count. As such, it's only appropriate to allow video evidence to be shown to ensure the proper call was made.

[connor.worley]

Something happened at worlds this year for me. FTC failed me. FIRST failed me. People failed me. Gracious professionalism failed me.

Don't adopt this negative line of thought. You'll realize that the mistakes those referees made are absolutely insignificant in terms of your life, and look back and realize it wasn't so bad. If you know you should have won, simply take pride in that you were the better team.

[dodar]

Referees are volunteers who take time out of their lives to help with this competition, and I don't think it is fair for them when they get called out later on with match video on a public platform for a bad call they made with good intentions. Some sort of process in which teams can check the scores and penalties before they are finalized or can retroactively modify them with some proof (even if it's only in place during playoffs/elims) would be beneficial for all parties.

Im sorry, but even as a volunteer, when you sign up to be a referee you know the position you are getting into will have huge consequences and responsibilities. Everyone always says we shouldnt criticize them because they are a volunteer, but they chose to be in that position.

[BethMo]

I referee for FTC at Washington league events and state championship. It's standard procedure here to go over the scoresheet with the teams at the end of each match and have a representative from each alliance initial it. I'm really glad that we do this -- at least once per event a student has spotted something that we mis-scored.

[Chris Fultz]

Im sorry, but even as a volunteer, when you sign up to be a referee you know the position you are getting into will have huge consequences and responsibilities. Everyone always says we shouldnt criticize them because they are a volunteer, but they chose to be in that position.

A few years ago i was on the youth baseball / softball league board of directors and on duty one Saturday morning. The referee for a girls softball game did not show, so my options were to referee the game, or to cancel it. I was not a referee, especially for girls softball. So i told the parents and the crowd that i was not a referee, and i would do what i could, and if any of them wanted to take my place they were welcome to come on to the field. If not, i asked them to sit back and enjoy the game. The game went well and no one questioned my calls.

My point is, you have no idea why that referee is in that position. Maybe they were a late recruit so the games could go on, maybe they volunteered to be an inspector and got recruited for refereeing, maybe they are a veteran. Until you have been in that position yourself, give them some slack.

[dodar]

A few years ago i was on the youth baseball / softball league board of directors and on duty one Saturday morning. The referee for a girls softball game did not show, so my options were to referee the game, or to cancel it. I was not a referee, especially for girls softball. So i told the parents and the crowd that i was not a referee, and i would do what i could, and if any of them wanted to take my place they were welcome to come on to the field. If not, i asked them to sit back and enjoy the game. The game went well and no one questioned my calls.

My point is, you have no idea why that referee is in that position. Maybe they were a late recruit so the games could go on, maybe they volunteered to be an inspector and got recruited for refereeing, maybe they are a veteran. Until you have been in that position yourself, give them some slack.

I understand giving slack, but my point still stands. The choice was/is still made full knowing the responsibilities held by being a referee.

[JohnFogarty]

First off as a former competitor at the World Championship level of FTC I'd like to say sorry about what happened to you. Secondly you've got to take some of the advice of the others above. Realize this, FIRST and FTC are not professional events and that the refs are not paid and extensively trained like other sports events. Things like this can happen with volunteer staff. You've really got to take a step back and think about that. I know that's not the first thing on your mind when stuff like this happens, BUT I really do see some things that could be good come from this. I think first implementing their own video replay system might need to become more of an idea as it would greatly assist in ensuring errors like this don't occur in the future.

[EmileH]

Although I firmly believe that most (if not all) head referees are reasonable people and would replay a match if they saw that the call was incorrect, the FRC game manual states that Referees cannot receive any input from video, images, media, etc.

5.5.3. REFEREE Interaction
The Head REFEREE has the ultimate authority in the ARENA during the event, but may receive input from additional sources, e.g. Game Designers, FIRST personnel, FTA, and technical staff. The Head REFEREE rulings are final. No event personnel, including the Head REFEREE, will review video, photos, artistic renderings, etc. of any MATCH, from any source, under any circumstances. T14 If a DRIVE TEAM needs clarification on a ruling or score, one (1) pre-college student from that DRIVE TEAM should address the Head REFEREE after the FIELD Reset signal (e.g. PLAYER STATION LED strings turn green). A DRIVE TEAM member signals their desire to speak with the Head REFEREE by standing in the corresponding Red or Blue Question Box, which are located on the floor near each end of the scoring table. Depending on timing, the Head REFEREE may postpone any requested discussion until the end of the subsequent MATCH.

[Lil' Lavery]

I understand giving slack, but my point still stands. The choice was/is still made full knowing the responsibilities held by being a referee.

Would you prefer that even fewer people accept that responsibility because of wanton criticism of their decisions?

[Fusion_Clint]

I agree that the ref's have a difficult task to do and mostly do a great job. Instead of becoming disillusioned with FIRST, take this opportunity to make it better.

I have been at more than one FTC event where it was stated up front that there will not be any replays no matter what, which is the wrong message to send. If it is important enough for the students to bust their hump on, it is important enough for the correct decision to be made.

At State and higher level matches in FTC there is FIRST video that can be reviewed. I think a challenge system should be implemented to help the Referee's get the call right. No one wants a full season of blood, sweat, and tears to go down because of a mistaken call.

[Lil' Lavery]

Are there any sports that have a challenge system that allows you to challenge penalties? The NFL allows challenges regarding events that happen on the field (was a ball caught, did a player go out of bounds, etc), but not penalties. MLB allows challenges to calls at the plate (safe/out), and there isn't really a direct parallel to penalties in baseball. The NHL and NBA have no challenge system.

Challenges to scoring errors may be valid, but referee penalties opens a nasty can of worms.

[dodar]

Would you prefer that even fewer people accept that responsibility because of wanton criticism of their decisions?

I'd rather not have people in power positions be above scrutiny.

[Lil' Lavery]

I'd rather not have people in power positions be above scrutiny.

Nobody is above scrutiny. There's a difference between scrutiny and public shaming, however.

[dodar]

Nobody is above scrutiny. There's a difference between scrutiny and public shaming, however.

And in which of my post was I publicly shaming any ref or volunteer?

[Rangel(kf7fdb)]

This story reminds me of what happened to us and our alliance for the Newton division 2011. Us, bomb squad and rush had our first quarterfinal won thanks to the minibot race when we noticed our tower was disabled. The refs had been saying in qualifications that we were deploying very close to the line so we lowered the deployment by an inch or two to ensure we weren't above the line. As it turns out, CNN was doing a story on us and the camera man comes over with video showing we weren't above the line. However, we were aware no video was allowed so we ended up taking the loss and didn't deploy our minibot the next match for fear of getting the penalty again and ultimately had Rush race who unfortunately wasn't fast enough to win the race. That year stings a bit since it was arguably our team's best robot but we've moved past it long ago. Later the ref who disabled the tower approached us and apologized if in case he made the wrong call. Sometimes calls are good and some are bad. It does happen and I hope you guys are able to move on from it.

[Tristan Lall]

Here's where I add the fact that YES, I'm fully aware that video footage and replay is not allowed to be shown to referees to contest a call.
Is that actually in the FTC rules? (FRC rules don't apply to FTC.)

[gblake]

Folks,

When I read the OP, I come away with the poster focusing on the decision not to replay the match, and not on the initial mistake.

Discussing the ins, outs, ups, and downs of volunteer or professional refs is a distraction from the point I think the OP wanted to make. In the story he told in his post, no one disagreed explicitly about whether or not the penalty assessment was a mistake.

Instead, I think the root of his frustration that the match wasn't replayed (or that a corrected score wasn't recorded) when all four teams involved agreed a mistake had been made.

The assumption (that might be 100% wrong) folks have been making, is that the FTC folks in charge of keeping things moving along, decided they preferred advancing into the next matches, over a replay or other adjustment of the recorded (but wrong) result of the match being discussed.

Moving the conversation back onto the topic of event-schedule-vs-correctness might be more valuable than rehashing the referees-are-human topic.

Blake

[cadandcookies]

Folks,

When I read the OP, I come away with the poster focusing on the decision not to replay the match, and not on the initial mistake.

Discussing the ins, outs, ups, and downs of volunteer or professional refs is a distraction from the point I think the OP wanted to make. In the story he told in his post, no one disagreed explicitly about whether or not the penalty assessment was a mistake.

Instead, I think the root of his frustration that the match wasn't replayed (or that a corrected score wasn't recorded) when all four teams involved agreed a mistake had been made.

The assumption (that might be 100% wrong) folks have been making, is that the FTC folks in charge of keeping things moving along, decided they preferred advancing into the next matches, over a replay or other adjustment of the recorded (but wrong) result of the match being discussed.

Moving the conversation back onto the topic of event-schedule-vs-correctness might be more valuable than rehashing the referees-are-human topic.

Blake

Blake, I 100% agree.

This season, at every FTC competition after Minnesota State Championship that I went to, I was frankly somewhat shocked by the focus on "just getting through" the even as opposed to the experience of teams, which is in my mind what event schedule vs. correctness comes down to. I was an FTA at two qualifiers and the Minnesota state championship this season, and had to call several replays in that time (working, of course, with our head referee to determine that was necessary). It sucks to replay a match, both in terms of scheduling and because it means you have to admit that somewhere, something went wrong, but the #1 priority needs to be giving teams a fair chance to succeed or fail on their merits, not because the referee messed up a call or because the field broke at an inopportune time.

I know there was talk in some earlier FRC threads about a "Putting teams FIRST" section in the volunteer manuals, but I think that needs to extend to FTC as well. Some of the volunteer behavior I witnessed and heard about at North Super Regional and Championships is in no way acceptable, and ultimately that comes down to us needing to train our FTC volunteers better, and making sure volunteers are in positions that fit their temperament. We collectively need to raise the quality of our FTC events, especially at the Super Regional level.

[smurfgirl]

Moving the conversation back onto the topic of event-schedule-vs-correctness might be more valuable than rehashing the referees-are-human topic.

I am not sure if things have changed since the 2008 experience I mentioned in my post, since that is the last time I went to the championship event, but my understanding is that the decision not to replay matches at the final level was (is?) out of the hands of the individuals volunteers including the head ref.

[mjames31]

The whole point of being an engineer is to overcome the inadequacies of nature, particularly human nature.

I feel like in order to this, FIRST should allow video coverage to be reviewed, just like in baseball and football. Indeed, cameras can see many things the human eye cannot, and with the 2 match limit for arguing, one would hardly have time to fabricate anything fake.

[dtengineering]

So my high school basketball team was playing in a game that would qualify us for the provincial championship. We were up by a point with seconds to go. Our center shoots the ball, misses, the other guys grab the rebound drive down the floor... the buzzer rings and their shot goes in. They win by a point. They go to the provincials.

Was it the fault of:

A) The ref for making a bad call?

B) The center for shooting when a possession game would guarantee a win?

C) The defense for not stopping their breakout?

D) Me for missing a foul shot (not to mention a few field goals) earlier in the game?

E) Our entire team for letting it get so close that it could be decided by one bad call?

F) The universe for not being fair?

I understand, you've got a good case. Why don't you talk to the FRC teams who were on Einstein when the field control system was interfered with and failed a few years back? I think they have a good case that a world championship title was unfairly interrupted. Maybe you want to talk to the English soccer team about the "Hand of God"? There's plenty of video evidence that Maradona actually comitted a foul rather than scoring a game deciding world cup elimination match. (It's an older reference but maybe a bit more significant on the world sporting scene than my high school basketball tournament experience!)

If you're looking for sympathy... well, I am sorry to hear that a mistake was made. I appreciate the frustration, but chances are the ref feels just as bad about making a bad call as you feel about the call being made. If it is any consolation, I'm pretty sure that my life has not been greatly damaged by what I truly believe was a monumentally incorrect call by a basketball referee over 25 years ago. I'm sure you'll get over this in time.

If you're looking to make the point that life is unfair... well, let's just hope that is the worst unfairness that life deals you.

Jason

[T^2]

Why don't you talk to the FRC teams who were on Einstein when the field control system was interfered with and failed a few years back?

Those teams received compensation, as well as acknowledgement from FIRST that the problem existed. Granted, the issues that year extended beyond Einstein.

[Katie_UPS]

Blake, I 100% agree.


I know there was talk in some earlier FRC threads about a "Putting teams FIRST" section in the volunteer manuals, but I think that needs to extend to FTC as well. Some of the volunteer behavior I witnessed and heard about at North Super Regional and Championships is in no way acceptable, and ultimately that comes down to us needing to train our FTC volunteers better, and making sure volunteers are in positions that fit their temperament. We collectively need to raise the quality of our FTC events, especially at the Super Regional level.

As someone who volunteered as an FTA at the super north regional, I'm curious as to what behavior you are referring to.

[FTC5110]

Folks,

When I read the OP, I come away with the poster focusing on the decision not to replay the match, and not on the initial mistake.

Discussing the ins, outs, ups, and downs of volunteer or professional refs is a distraction from the point I think the OP wanted to make. In the story he told in his post, no one disagreed explicitly about whether or not the penalty assessment was a mistake.

Instead, I think the root of his frustration that the match wasn't replayed (or that a corrected score wasn't recorded) when all four teams involved agreed a mistake had been made.

The assumption (that might be 100% wrong) folks have been making, is that the FTC folks in charge of keeping things moving along, decided they preferred advancing into the next matches, over a replay or other adjustment of the recorded (but wrong) result of the match being discussed.

Moving the conversation back onto the topic of event-schedule-vs-correctness might be more valuable than rehashing the referees-are-human topic.

Blake

As one of the teams on red alliance (not playing in that match) we were stunned that a replay wasn't granted. All 4 teams wanted it and from what we could tell observing the match only 1 ref called the penalty but was blatently wrong. There were 4 refs for a 12'x12' field, it's not like FRC where it's hard work trying to see what's going on. For those of you not participating in FTC this incorrect call was a 370 point swing literally gifting a win to blue.

Probably the most uninspiring moment for us since starting with FIRST in 2009. If scheduling was the reason a replay wasn't granted someone needs re-think why they're involved with this because they've failed in the most basic function - inspiring kids. No one in the stands would have cared about missing 5min of lunch break or only waiting patiently 25min for closing ceremony to begin.

Fail on so many levels.

[The Lucas]

In my experience, after the initial sting of losing on a controversial ref call seems overwhelming. However, after that passes they become some of my favorite stories to tell. One in particular became a feel good story and my team became good friends with one of our opponents (we were already good friends with some of the other ones). Since your opponents agreed that the match should be replayed, perhaps when you meet at Worlds next year to talk and bond over this shared experience.


The Story:

This story is regarding FTC Edison Division Semi-Finals match 3. We, ERX, are paired with Cougar Robotics, going against an alliance including Masquerade and Tesla. The record is 1-1, so a third match is forced.
Here is a video of the match, please feel free to forward to the tele-op period at https://youtu.be/5d3UuzGS5Lk?t=301.

Pay attention to Tesla's robot on the bottom left of the field as it manipulates the 90cm goal. Pay special attention to where we, ERX, and Cougars robots are. If you go to 5:20 (https://youtu.be/5d3UuzGS5Lk?t=319) and wait four seconds, you'll see Tesla drop their 90cm goal by moving up their intake.

If you watch till the end of the game and look at the tubes, I think you'll conclude that it's obvious that the red alliance won the match.

Here's where it starts. Our team cheers, excited about the match. I go to the bathroom and come back to see the score posted on the board. 855 - 600, Blue alliance wins.

My mind was boggled. What happened? How could this have happened?
As it turns out, the dropping of the 90cm goal was blamed on the red alliance. We were given a major penalty and the blue alliance was credited with a full 90cm goal.

Did the red alliance drop the goal? No. It's obvious in the footage. Here's where I add the fact that YES, I'm fully aware that video footage and replay is not allowed to be shown to referees to contest a call.


I watched the video and I think there is some nuance to the situation that needs to be explained, especially to the largely FRC crowd posting on this thread. It is a judgement call, not clear either way. I am familiar with FTC rules, but I am not a ref (hardware inspector locally, not at Worlds).

<GS14> Robots may not tip over ANY Rolling Goal (deliberately or accidentally). If this occurs, the offending Alliance
will incur a Major Penalty.

This rule requires that for every rolling goal tipped, a major penalty must be called on one alliance. The refs must determine which alliance was most responsible for causing the tip, it doesn't matter if the robot is directly in contact with the goal. If both alliances are to blame, one must still receive a penalty. If the goal is an opposing goal to the robot responsible, then the opposing alliance is credited with a full goal.

I am going to break this down by timestamp of the video and use the standard YMTC Redabot and Blueabot to replace team names:

5:03 Redabot first makes contact with Blueabot while Blueabot is placing a Blue goal in the Blue Parking Zone. Contact continues back and forth around the Blue Parking Zone. Blue drive team is gesturing (appears to be complaining about the contact).

5:18 Blueabot is lifting their intake near the Blue Goal, video is obscured by legs so it is hard to see what they are doing (possibly trying to pick up a ball on the base of the goal).

5:21 Redabot hits Blueabot on its way to the center goal. Announcer indicates End Game, clock is not visible to confirm when exactly when it started.

5:22 Redabot and Blueabot (not in contact with each other) move away from the Blue Goal and Blue Goal tips toward them. Once again the view is obscured by legs (it would be nice to see a recording from the camera guy, looks like he had a good angle).

Now is the YMTC moment, which robot caused this tip more? I think it is clear that both robots were involved. Most FTC calls depend on the timeline of events (and possible future timelines in the case of blocking), you can't just look at the snapshot.

My judgement from the replay:
Most likely Blueabot got its intake caught on the ball or the rolling goal base while attempting to pick up the ball. When Blueabot drove away, this contact on the base or the ball caused the tip. It does not appear to be caused by Blueabot moving their intake upward as OP suggests (would have tipped the opposite way initially if that was the case). Redabot did contact Blueabot during this process so they could have caused Blueabot to become stuck on the goal, and thus cause the tip. Redabot moved away so Blueabot could have tried to lift its intake if it was stuck. I think it is about 75% Blue's fault and 25% Red's Fault so I would call a Blue Major Penalty based on this replay.

Now what did the Refs see?

The nearest ref (suspenders) seems to be looking to the right (away from the goal) at the contact. Possibly the Ref is considering a Blocking or Pinning call on Redabot. Redabot is in a high risk position (contacting Blueabot while Blueabot is in contact with a field element in their parking zone) and time (End Game). The ref may not see Blueabot attempting to pick up the ball and only look at the contact, then see the goal tip.

The Head Ref is in that corner temporarily, but appears to be also focused on the contact then re-positioning to the center goal for end game when the goal tips (re-positioning at unfortunate times causes missed calls in all sports, including the recent infamous World Cup biting incident (http://www.si.com/soccer/planet-futbol/2014/06/25/referees-analysis-luis-suarez-bite-uruguay-italy)). He then appears to be ready to call a Block on Blue if the Red Ball doesn't score.

Ref across the way doesn't appear to see the goal until it is fully tipped. Then some gesturing and talking to the ref on that corner.

If none of the refs saw the goal start to go down or Blueabot attempting to pick up a ball off of the rolling goal (kind of an odd thing to attempt and hard to see from an overhead angle) then they are basing their call on: Redabot hits Blueabot (when Redabot needs to be careful to avoid contact), then Blue Goal tips. It is not all that surprising refs decided to give the mandatory major penalty to Red. In FIRST and sports, refs often err on the side of the offense when unsure and a penalty must be called (see basketball charging and football pass interference).





We were aware of this, and despite telling them a wrong call was made, we knew we wouldn't get much out of this.

We appealed to the gracious professionalism in the students from Tesla and Masquerade. We showed all of them the video. They all agreed - the call was wrong. We didn't tip over their goal. They did.

After some haggling, we got them to agree to talk to the referees with us. We went to head ref. Not just ERX. Not just cougars. We all went. All four teams from the match. The entirety of both alliances went to the referees. All four teams said the call was wrong. We weren't even asking for an adjustment of the score. We were asking for a rematch.

The answer? No. Why? My understanding was that it was to save time. They couldn't spare 5 minutes to correct an enormous injustice. They were saving face and saving the tournament five minutes by completely shafting our alliance. We spent 7 months developing this robot and getting to this stage to be shut out for the purpose of saving five minutes.

Not to mention - four teams, opposite alliances, all agreeing on the false call and asking a ref for a rematch? That's an enormous show of gracious professionalism, and I couldn't respect them more for that. It was amazing. And we were told no? Make your own judgement about what degree of ungraciously professional that is.

After we have haggled the head ref in excess of ten times trying to get this correct without avail, we were giving up. They were told to proceed to the other field to set up for division finals. We asked them to protest and refuse to go to the field and set up. They would have to give us a rematch.


<G14> Matches are replayed at the discretion of the Head Referee and only under the following circumstances:
a. Failure of a Field Element that was likely to have impacted which Alliance won the Match.
b. Loss of control of a Robot due to a VERIFIABLE failure of the tournament-supplied FCS computer, FCS
software, USB Hub, or Gamepad that was likely to have impacted which Alliance won the Match.
c. Loss of control of all four Robots due to a failure of the Field’s wireless router that was likely to have
impacted which Alliance won the Match.
Unexpected Robot behavior in itself will not result in a Match replay. Team-induced failures, such as low battery
conditions, processor sleep time-outs, Robot mechanical/electrical/software failures, Robot communication
failures, etc. are NOT valid justifications for a re-Match.

Clearly, none of the these 3 replay conditions apply to this situation. So if you don't expect the ref to look at your video because T1 prohibits it, why would you expect a replay when G14 prohibits it?
No one is ever happy when a match is decided on a ref call. It is a bad way to win, a terrible way to lose, and a tremendous burden on the refs. This was a judgement call within the rules, not a miscount or some other clearly verifiable mistake (I have lost an FRC final on one of those). Replay is not an option under the rules, so unless those rules change the only option is to continue the tournament for all the remaining teams and spectators. The advancing teams protesting would not cause a replay, only 2v0 Finals matches which would diminish the event for more participants.

Is that actually in the FTC rules? (FRC rules don't apply to FTC.)
Yes, T1-a

[FTC5110]

My judgement from the replay:
Most likely Blueabot got its intake caught on the ball or the rolling goal base while attempting to pick up the ball. When Blueabot drove away, this contact on the base or the ball caused the tip. It does not appear to be caused by Blueabot moving their intake upward as OP suggests (would have tipped the opposite way initially if that was the case). Redabot did contact Blueabot during this process so they could have caused Blueabot to become stuck on the goal, and thus cause the tip. Redabot moved away so Blueabot could have tried to lift its intake if it was stuck. I think it is about 75% Blue's fault and 25% Red's Fault so I would call a Blue Major Penalty based on this replay.

Now what did the Refs see?

Probably something close to what the camera man and emcee saw.
http://livestream.com/accounts/13199388/FTC-Edison
Teleop starts around 2:03:00 on the 4/25 stream.

Red clearly not in contact as blue perform risky operation to retrieve ball on the goal base. Emcee says they need to be careful with the goal because it's perched on a ball. Happened just before endgame period.

Oddly the head ref told us he didn't see what happend and yes that's him in the corner at the moment it happened.

[Lil' Lavery]

And in which of my post was I publicly shaming any ref or volunteer?

If you want to play that game, in which post did I accuse you of publicly shaming a ref or volunteer? My point is that we should be tactful of when we make the scrutiny of volunteers a public matter. There are internal and private methods to deal with volunteer concerns. Bring it up with the VC or RD rather than with CD.

[DavidGitz]

Nobody is above scrutiny. There's a difference between scrutiny and public shaming, however.

I believe this is what they were referring to.

[Conor Ryan]

If this happened in FRC, Frank would step in with a blog post about how human error is part of the game. Especially since both alliances agree on what the outcome should be. I wonder why FTC doesn't do that.

If I were in a situation where I made a wrong call that effected match outcomes and I had the ability to escalate the issue just to talk about it, I would explore the opportunity and at least provide some closure for teams.

[driesman]

All - Our team has experienced first hand issues with bad calls and the need to keep the "show" moving over-riding what should be replays in the name of fairness. This is of particular importance in the semi-finals and finals. A miss-call in the qualification rounds affect teams much less since a) there are other qualification rounds b) scouting prevents a single bad game from affecting the ultimate outcome of the competition.

A delay of 5 min to re-run a match is little price to pay for a fair competition.

With all this said, I viewed the recorded video stream from FIRST. See:

http://livestream.com/accounts/13199388/FTC-Edison
(Video labeled Edison Championship 4/25/15)
Time stamp: 02:04:45ish.

This is shot from a different perspective. You can see 4251 striking the back of the 5026 just prior to the tube falling. Do I believe that this was the cause of the tub falling? NO- hard to believe that there was enough momentum exchange between the two bots. However, I do see why the ref's made the call they did.

[Lil' Lavery]

I believe this is what they were referring to.

That post does not accuse Dodar of shaming individuals, it points out that scrutiny is not synonymous with publicly calling people out.

[MattRain]

If this happened in FRC, Frank would step in with a blog post about how human error is part of the game. Especially since both alliances agree on what the outcome should be. I wonder why FTC doesn't do that.

If I were in a situation where I made a wrong call that effected match outcomes and I had the ability to escalate the issue just to talk about it, I would explore the opportunity and at least provide some closure for teams.

This whole event felt like FTC was the red-head-step-child of FIRST, or that we were on the back-burner. I'm not surprised anymore by FIRST acting this way. Its been multiple things that have created this. I really would like to see FTC have someone like Frank that sees what's happening to the teams, and tries to fix it. Our coaches have been very annoyed at how FTC was run this year, along with being at a different location. The whole event this year felt like another Super Regional to us. This year has been, by far the worse setup that FIRST has done with FTC.

(I understand cant complain to much though, as we were part of the Winning alliance.)

[smart1]

These sort of things make me very upset, when it happens to us or any other team in eliminations. There just is no accountability, we are told basically to use our "GraciousProfessionalism" and get over it . I feel them not being aloud to look at video evidence is ridiculous for how much teams spend to get to these competitions. Do I expect refs to be perfect no I expect them do the right thing or in case of video be allowed to look at it.

[gblake]

I have often ref'ed VRC matches.

Asking the refs to review video is a very bad idea.

The worst situation would be attempting to review random footage on random playback devices offered at random times by random people. Great Ceasar's ghost! What a nightmare that would be.

A bad situation would be having to instrument the fields with video equipment, keeping that equipment's lines of sight unobstructed, then retrieving the footage, isolating the incident(s), wishing that the point of view was better, spending time staring at the footage, running it back and forth, and discussing it, and then maybe (or not) having a clear ability to revise the outcome of a match.

As a ref, I would instead recommend revising the rules to include a quick double-check with the teams of all scores/penalties before they become set in stone. During that check, any protests (by the students at the field can be heard by the refs. Head refs decisions are final.

Then we/you move on...

When I wrote my earlier post here, I was unaware that the FTC rules forbid replays to correct anything (including scoring/penalty mistakes (if one actually does occur)) other than the three circumstances listed in the rules. So... Dear OP - There was no "Fraud of FTC Worlds" because of the event staff deciding not to replay that match. The four teams involved in that match asked the FTC event staff to violate FTC rules, and they got the exact answer that they should have expected.

Blake

[MattRain]

. So... Dear OP - There was no "Fraud of FTC Worlds" because of the event staff deciding not to replay that match. The four teams involved in that match asked the FTC event staff to violate FTC rules, and they got the exact answer that they should have expected.

Blake

There was not a violation of rules here. Read them. The fact that the refs did not want to replay a match to stay on schedule is just wrong (Even though its not in the G14 rules, I know). I have run as head ref in some Arizona qualifiers, and this is just plane wrong. They teams came together to show that it was wrong. They were ignored. End of story. I agree with the OP that they should have had a replay of the match.

Over the 5 years that we have been to Worlds, we have run into problems of this factor. Field communications dropping, us holding the controllers buy the cords, and the robots still running..... all of the issues came back to us, saying they would not replay the matches.... it has happened every year, and is just plane wrong. We had extra time sitting around before awards and such that could have been used to replay a 5 minute match that really could have changed the ranking/game.

[Kpchem]

There was not a violation of rules here. Read them. The fact that the refs did not want to replay a match to stay on schedule is just wrong....

As quoted earlier in this thread, it would have been a violation of G14 to replay the match.


<G14> Matches are replayed at the discretion of the Head Referee and only under the following circumstances:
a. Failure of a Field Element that was likely to have impacted which Alliance won the Match.
b. Loss of control of a Robot due to a VERIFIABLE failure of the tournament-supplied FCS computer, FCS software, USB Hub, or Gamepad that was likely to have impacted which Alliance won the Match.
c. Loss of control of all four Robots due to a failure of the Field’s wireless router that was likely to have impacted which Alliance won the Match.

None of those events occurred, and therefore the head referee could not replay the match according to the rules laid out in the 2015 manual. Video replays are not allowed as per <T1-a>, and there is no clause for "all the teams agree the call was blown". Whether or not there should be is a discussion unto itself, but there was no way for the head referee to grant a replay under the 2015 rules.

Having watched the match recording several times, I can understand how Red could possibly be seen as at fault for pushing Blue into a position where they tipped the goal, especially with the proximity to the End Game and because the goal was in the Blue Parking Zone. I have been the head referee for Colorado FTC for the last several years and I can't say that I know what call I would have made in that situation, it's an incredibly close call in an incredibly high-stress environment. OP, I'm sorry that this happened to your team and you feel slighted, but I don't know that the unequivocally wrong decision was made.

[T^2]

I don't know that the unequivocally wrong decision was made.

Of course the unequivocally wrong decision was made. An injustice was committed against these teams. The people in charge made a decision that may have been in line with the letter of the rules, but was immoral. If the written laws are immoral, then it is one's duty to ignore them. Blind obedience to the law is the very hallmark of fascism.

[MattRain]

Of course the unequivocally wrong decision was made. An injustice was committed against these teams. The people in charge made a decision that may have been in line with the letter of the rules, but was immoral. If the written laws are immoral, then it is one's duty to ignore them. Blind obedience to the law is the very hallmark of fascism.

2 Thumbs up. FIRST is to inspire students.... its just wrong about how this was called. Ok, so its not a written rule of FTC this year. But everyone fighting that it wasn't wrong, put yourself in this situation, without Frank's help... you would be mad at the outcome too!

[Kpchem]

Of course the unequivocally wrong decision was made. An injustice was committed against these teams. The people in charge made a decision that may have been in line with the letter of the rules, but was immoral. If the written laws are immoral, then it is one's duty to ignore them. Blind obedience to the law is the very hallmark of fascism.

2 Thumbs up. FIRST is to inspire students.... its just wrong about how this was called. Ok, so its not a written rule of FTC this year. But everyone fighting that it wasn't wrong, put yourself in this situation, without Frank's help... you would be mad at the outcome too!

So now it's the head referee's responsibility to both enforce the rules as well as decide when the existing rules are wrong, and then just not follow the ones which they think are wrong? And if they don't, and instead decide to follow the rules that they have been using all year, they're being fascist? Really?

To address your point Matt: Put in the situation of the OP here, I can understand being frustrated and angry. But I would never ask a referee or other FIRST volunteer to go directly against the manual that they have been asked to follow, even if I was unhappy with the results of that.

My original quote is that having watched the videos several times I'm not 100% sure that the penalty should have been on Blue, which is what a lot of people here are arguing. If the referees at the event believe that Red's actions caused Blue to tip over the ball tube, then the penalty was applied correctly. If that's not the case and it was a mis-marked score sheet, then it was a mistake and the referees can correct that after the fact. However, what they cannot do is simply replay a match because that is what the teams in the match want.

I agree with the other posters in this thread that having the teams sign off on the scoresheets would have helped in this situation to make sure this wasn't an error, and this is why I always talk with teams after a match and explain any penalties that are called, so they understand what is being called before it is announced.

[Foster]

Of course the unequivocally wrong decision was made. An injustice was committed against these teams. The people in charge made a decision that may have been in line with the letter of the rules, but was immoral. If the written laws are immoral, then it is one's duty to ignore them. Blind obedience to the law is the very hallmark of fascism.

Wow. Just wow. Wow.

But first:

I'm with Blake. The rules are pretty clear on what/when a match is replayed. And I've refereed about as many matches as Blake. While the first call may have been bad, there wasn't / isn't an option to replay the match based on four teams requesting it. As we say "two wrongs don't make a right". And the referees rule is final.

Now to "immoral" and "hall mark of fascism".

You need to get a grip and dial this back. It's just robots. ROBOTS. Stuff like this happens in the real world on a semi-regular basis. This is a game, lives are not at stake. People make bad calls and things don't go your way, this may be the first time, isn't going to be the last. Top teams will take this and shake it off and come back next season. You've been here since 2011, so you are either a roboteer with lots of experience or a mentor. In either case set a positive example.

[T^2]

You need to get a grip and dial this back. It's just robots. ROBOTS. Stuff like this happens in the real world on a semi-regular basis. This is a game, lives are not at stake.

We differ. So be it.

[MattRain]

My original quote is that having watched the videos several times I'm not 100% sure that the penalty should have been on Blue, which is what a lot of people here are arguing. If the referees at the event believe that Red's actions caused Blue to tip over the ball tube, then the penalty was applied correctly. If that's not the case and it was a mis-marked score sheet, then it was a mistake and the referees can correct that after the fact. However, what they cannot do is simply replay a match because that is what the teams in the match want.

I agree with the other posters in this thread that having the teams sign off on the scoresheets would have helped in this situation to make sure this wasn't an error, and this is why I always talk with teams after a match and explain any penalties that are called, so they understand what is being called before it is announced.

OP:
Did the red alliance drop the goal? No. It's obvious in the footage. Here's where I add the fact that YES, I'm fully aware that video footage and replay is not allowed to be shown to referees to contest a call.

We were aware of this, and despite telling them a wrong call was made, we knew we wouldn't get much out of this.

We appealed to the gracious professionalism in the students from Tesla and Masquerade. We showed all of them the video. They all agreed - the call was wrong. We didn't tip over their goal. They did.

OP:
The answer? No. Why? My understanding was that it was to save time. They couldn't spare 5 minutes to correct an enormous injustice. They were saving face and saving the tournament five minutes by completely shafting our alliance. We spent 7 months developing this robot and getting to this stage to be shut out for the purpose of saving five minutes.


The Black Bolded: The fact of the matter is it was scored wrong and nothing was still done about it. Just to save time. This has happened multiple times.

Part of my problem here is that the more FRC based posters here are posting, not being a 100% sure on the way a match is scored and its penalties.

If a BLUE goal is knocked over by a BLUE robot, the BLUE alliance is given a 50 Point Penalty, and no score for that goal.

<GS14>: Robots may not tip over ANY Rolling Goal (deliberately or accidentally). If this occurs, the offending Alliance will incur a Major Penalty.

If a BLUE goal is knocked over by a RED robot, the RED Alliance is given a 50 point Penalty, and the BLUE goal is scored as completely full, or 261 points for that goal.
<GS5>: Robots may not de-Score Balls from any of the opponent Alliance’s Goals. If Balls are de-Scored, the offending Alliance will incur a Major Penalty per incident plus a Penalty equal to the maximum Ball Tube points for that Goal. Please note that <GS14> may also apply.

It is clear in that video that 5026, a BLUE alliance robot, tipped over the BLUE rolling goal while the RED robot was not touching 5026. BLUE should have been penalized for it and not RED.

If you were to read the rules, you may agree with us that the wrong call was made and nothing was done about it. That's part of the reason the OP is angry.

It's Elimination rounds, not qualifiers. If it was a qualification match it may not matter as much, but the fact that it was a deciding elimination match just makes this worse. Not to mention it could have meant that my team wouldn't have come out as the FTC World Champs. I understand its a gray area with the Head Ref, but I would rather inspire the kids than shove them away and told to forget about it. It just not right.

[Abhishek R]

I've been on the receiving end of multiple "unfair" elimination bracket ending calls, and it really does hurt. I can't believe some people are saying "it's just robots," but it's really not fun or inspiring to lose matches when you really did win, especially when it means the end of the regional, or in some cases, end of the season. The students breathe and live FIRST, and this means the world to us, to put in all this work and effort into a machine. I just don't understand why, if everyone agreed an incorrect call was made, they didn't replay the match? Surely a single FTC match can't take that much time?

[Kpchem]

The teams all agreed that it was the wrong call, but I did not see any statement from the OP that the referees said that they made the wrong call. If the referees had agreed they made the wrong call, the call could have been reversed.

I know that my profile says FRC, but I am saying all of this as someone who has been the head referee for FTC in Colorado for the last three years. I have read the rules a few different times.

My uncertainty stems from the interaction that the RED robot has a few seconds before the BLUE robot tips the goal. I'm not trying to argue that red was touching blue, but they may have contributed to it tipping. As I stated earlier, I don't know what call I would have made at the time if I had been in the referee's shoes.

I know the stakes, I know that it was an important match. But it's not a grey area for the referee. The instances where a field replay can occur are clearly laid out in G14, and the referees being unclear on a cal or making the wrong call is not one of them.

I agree this is all for the kids, but I disagree with saying that we can arbitrarily change the rules just because a controversial call is made.

[IronicDeadBird]

Im sorry, but even as a volunteer, when you sign up to be a referee you know the position you are getting into will have huge consequences and responsibilities. Everyone always says we shouldnt criticize them because they are a volunteer, but they chose to be in that position.

/rant
When you sign up to be a ref yes I am sure people are aware they are signing up for a task with massive amounts of influence. However just because someone volunteer to help with an event doesn't mean they sign up to be a punching bag when something goes wrong. Yes they have huge responsibilities, but you should not criticize someone for a mistake that was made due to a faulty system. If you can conclusively go and say "this ref is biased against us" then yes that is a fault with the ref and that should be dealt with separately then making a mistake.
I refuse to call someone bad or evil because they make a mistake because Lorde* knows I make them all the time
It is when you have a consistent choose to make those same mistakes when I question your intent.

/rant

*No not lord, Lorde like "and we will never be royal"

[GaryVoshol]

Im sorry, but even as a volunteer, when you sign up to be a referee you know the position you are getting into will have huge consequences and responsibilities. Everyone always says we shouldnt criticize them because they are a volunteer, but they chose to be in that position.

I've been a FRC referee for 9 years now and head ref for 7 years. FLL ref and head ref for about 11 years, and I reffed FRC one year. I take my responsibilities seriously. So much so that when I couldn't keep the rule sets separate while doing all 3 programs, I decided to forgo FTC. All the refs I've worked with have the same attitude. Sure, some learn the the rules better than others, some recognize fouls on the field better than others, but all get the basics and never stop trying to improve.

I have no problem being fairly criticized when I make a mistake. And believe me I've made my share - especially when they give us an impossible game like Aerial Assist last year, for one example.

As I said, I only did FTC one year, and I don't know anything about this game. I don't know if the OP's complaints are fair or not, but I have no reason to not believe him. (Although I have been misquoted on Chief Delphi after answering a question at an event, and have had circumstances described incorrectly.) It does seem strange to me that a replay would not be considered when teams from both sides request it, but I don't know the extenuating circumstances.

I've looked at video after an event where there was a controversial call, and once in a while I couldn't believe what I saw. Other times I was pleased to see that our call was correct. I recall one incident at IRI during Overdrive - both I and the ref across the field from me flagged the infraction immediately, we were both absolutely sure. When I later saw the match as filmed from above the driver station, it looked totally different. That's one reason we don't use video replay - it depends too much on the camera angles.

And of course, referees will not discuss calls on an open forum like CD. So we won't ever know the ref's side of the story, which is unfortunate because he can't defend himself.

I hope the OP will think again and not let one bad event drive him away from the program. It's a great disappointment I'm sure. But is it worth throwing in the towel? Did the kids on the team have any positive experiences this year, and did they develop and grow?

[smart1]

If a rule is wrong it should be examined by First and should be changed in the future. But I do agree that refs shouldn't have to pick and choose which rules are fair.

[ksafin]

OP here. I want to share some of my thoughts regarding what has been said, and share what I intended the focus of this thread to be.

Firstly,
For those of you who have been discussing the rules - saying that the refs followed the rules correctly, that a rematch shouldn't have been given due to the rules, etc.
I am in no way advocating for rule violation by either the referees, volunteers, or any teams. In our moment of disbelief and desperation, we all asked for a rematch (I of course don't know the requirements for a rematch, I've never needed to know). Frankly, as someone mentioned, this didn't require a rematch. It should have been noted as a mistake, revised, and that's it. A request for a rematch was a last-minute plea to correct a grave injustice.

Citing these rules as reason that this injustice was committed and not corrected is not enough for me. For those of you doing this, are you really trying to tell me that I should accept the situation, which was clearly wrong, because a rule said I should? If there's rules that allow this kind of behavior, and these kinds of things to happen, they should be changed.

What am I upset about?
A lot. I'd like to thank whoever clarified that I am not trying to be a broken record in terms of the "refs are humans" discussion. I totally understand that. My problem stems from an indifference to the injustice and a lack of interest in correcting it for the purpose of saving time and saving face.

I've read all of your posts. I agree with some and disagree with others. I know that, deep down in my heart, I cannot accept it when anyone says "That's the nature of sports, people mess up, you have to deal with it."

Really? This is FIRST Robotics. Are you telling me we need to settle for failures, injustices, and problems? We should be eagerly trying to solve them, enhancing the experiences of teams, and doing everything possible to ensure a fair, efficient, and proper tournament.

Students spend thousands of man-hours developing these robots, and I would not tolerate, whether it was my team or any other, them being shut down improperly because a wrong call was made and thousands of people in the FIRST community said they should "deal with it" and that that's "how it is".


Will this be a big deal a few years down the road for me? Probably not. But that isn't the point. There's been too many problems for me to ignore them. We have an opportunity to influence positive change, and we should take it.

Video Replays
They aren't allowed. Both in FRC and FTC. Why? I want to hear a good argument for this. I've heard people say stuff about GP and how FIRST doesn't need video replays. At the same time, I've met tens if not hundreds of people who have considered "GP" to be a weapon used by referees and others to silence students. That is, if you don't accept their call, you aren't being GP. That saddens me.

It's been said before, countless times, and I'm going to say it again. Almost every major sport accepts video replays. Even Major League Baseball is instituting it for next year.

Why doesn't FIRST? Is it because FIRST is more "just", more "GP", more "high and mighty" that it isn't prone to human error and neglect? No. I can't accept that.

We should constantly be moving to, within means, make FIRST a better experience for teams. I can understand the difficulty of video replays for qualification matches - there's over 100 of those. That's fine. In general, a bad match in quals doesn't take you out of the game - it averages out and you end up being OK.

For Finals, where the stakes are so high, and the matches so few, this should be important and easy to institute. We spent considerably more time stalling, bickering with refs, and trying to force a rematch than a review of video would have taken.

What does this mean going forward?
I'm a FIRST alumni. I left FIRST with every ounce of love and appreciation for the program and everything it's done for me. I'm taking this as an opportunity to do something to help it.

I spoke to an FTC team, who, due to both the scandal I've outlined with my team, and other issues, is absolving their FTC team. They're upset with the way that FTC has been deteriorating, the problems that have arisen, the injustices, and the faults. This isn't an isolated case. I know of at least four FTC teams that are quitting FTC simply because of this story.

This is a big deal. I'm going to work with them to try to bring more of this story to light. We're going to be developing a petition of grievances and ideas. We hope FIRST takes them seriously. More and more people are growing discontent every year within FTC. We want to see change. We want to see it taken seriously.

[75vs1885]

Stuff like that happens in FIRST you just have to deal with it. There are plenty of worse situations where corrections could've been made, but didn't. Rather than venting on chiefDelphi where other students can see this, you should write or somehow contact FIRST regarding the concern. A reason they might have not replayed the match is because it could have caused a lot of anger from other teams where they could argue for the same thing or similar things. I understand your frustration, probably hundreds of hours of work ended by a mistake which was avoidable isn't fair, but it's life. The students can learn so much from this incident.

[AndrewPospeshil]

Of course the unequivocally wrong decision was made. An injustice was committed against these teams. The people in charge made a decision that may have been in line with the letter of the rules, but was immoral. If the written laws are immoral, then it is one's duty to ignore them. Blind obedience to the law is the very hallmark of fascism.

I don't think a bad FTC referee call has much to do with facism, but that's just me.

As far as I can tell, there's really no question about what should've been done. Correct me if I'm wrong, but matches are not to be replayed unless they fall under the circumstances of G14, which they didn't. I'm not 100% well-versed in FTC referee rules and guidelines off the top of my head, but I'm pretty positive video evidence is not allowed to be used. I know that I've volunteered at plenty of competitions where a team brought video evidence to the refs and they wouldn't even view it, so I assume the same would apply here. The way I see it, the refs were just following the rules. Should the rules be rewritten? Maybe. But that's not up to the refs to decide on the competition floor. Imagine how chaotic FTC (and FRC, FLL) would be if refs could cherry-pick which rules they want to abide by (in the name of facism or otherwise). Not to mention that although one 5-minute delay might not affect competition that much, inviting other teams to have their matches replayed could cause significant delays.

Tough calls like this happen. I am legitimately sorry for what happened to your team, and the fact that it may have prevented you from going further at the world championship. That's a bummer. More than that it's almost heartbreaking. But I think that this is your job as a mentor to make the best of a negative experience and turn it into a positive, learning one. Instead of teaching your kids that "the refs or evil," or on the flipside that you should "live with it," teach your kids something constructive about the experience. Whether it's through organizing a petition to FIRST about your displeasure with the FTC rules, advocating for a way to fix them, or by developing a robot that is less prone to penalties next year, use this as a life lesson. I think you're presented with a unique and special opportunity right now and I would hate to see it go to waste. It's not my place as a high schooler to tell an adult what to do, but I strongly encourage you to make what you want of this situation. You can either take it as a negative and allow it to destroy your FTC/FIRST career, or you can have your kids grow and improve as individuals and a team thanks to this experience.

[David Lame]

I can't help thinking of this incident:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlDTBDJbNE4

Armando Gallaraga pitched a perfect game, but it isn't in the record books. The 27th batter that Gallaraga faced hit a ground ball. The first baseman got it and tagged the base, clearly ahead of the batter, and the umpire called "SAFE".

Everyone agrees that the batter was clearly out, but baseball didn't allow instant replay calls.

Gallaraga was interviewed afterwards, and he was one class act, saying how great he felt about the game.

Of course, Gallaraga undoubtedly has millions in the bank to console himself, so the situations are not quite the same, but it seems a little bit similar. A bad call. An important situation. The rulebook doesn't allow anyone to do what everyone seems to think is right.

[smurfgirl]

I've met tens if not hundreds of people who have considered "GP" to be a weapon used by referees and others to silence students. That is, if you don't accept their call, you aren't being GP. That saddens me.

I've been in FIRST and interacting with refs for a decade, both as a student member of a drive team and volunteering as a ref myself. I have never seen a ref use "GP" as a weapon. I know that doesn't mean it has never happened, but there are two sides to every story.

[ksafin]

I've been in FIRST and interacting with refs for a decade, both as a student member of a drive team and volunteering as a ref myself. I have never seen a ref use "GP" as a weapon. I know that doesn't mean it has never happened, but there are two sides to every story.

I'm surprised that in my entire reply this was the part you fixated on.

My point was more relevant to this story, although I've heard this from others.

When all four teams were contesting the ruling, the ref said "You should all be GP and accept the ruling and move on" which was mindblowing to me.

The only thing that was GP was the four teams telling the ref the ruling was wrong.

[EricH]

Video Replays
They aren't allowed. Both in FRC and FTC. Why? I want to hear a good argument for this. [...]

It's been said before, countless times, and I'm going to say it again. Almost every major sport accepts video replays. Even Major League Baseball is instituting it for next year.
Git yer facts straight--they been usin' it last year, and before that too on a more limited basis. Anyways, I'll be going a lot more in-depth. I can give several. I've been part of the last couple of discussions on instant replay.

We should constantly be moving to, [I]within means, make FIRST a better experience for teams. I can understand the difficulty of video replays for qualification matches - there's over 100 of those. That's fine. In general, a bad match in quals doesn't take you out of the game - it averages out and you end up being OK.

For Finals, where the stakes are so high, and the matches so few, this should be important and easy to institute. We spent considerably more time stalling, bickering with refs, and trying to force a rematch than a review of video would have taken.


I'm going to start with the (heavily) emphasized part. For instant replay, you need a camera. Cameras cost money, in some amount. They need to be pointed at the area of interest, and they need to be of quality good enough to see what you're looking at (AKA, is it a foul). That means a reasonably high-resolution camera, and probably somebody to operate it. Both of which can cost money, in a somewhat larger amount than just a random dude with a cellphone.

Now, that paragraph is the major argument against instant replay. You need to have the money for coverage of all the possible areas of fouls--MLB is probably the most points of any major sport, at 5 points (ball, 3 bases, home). The others, you're mainly going to be near the ball, so one camera could work... but how many do they have, like 3-4 easily?. FRC? In an area the size of a basketball court, with action at both ends, six robots, 3+ humans... You've got 6-8 potential "zoom-in" points. One camera isn't going to cut it--there's been technical analysis done, I can bring up that thread if you like. You need 3-4 at least, with operators who actually know what they should be pointing at. (The "replays" during Einstein... eh, not so great...)


But wait! There's more! In addition to the technical problem, there's the logistics problem. Namely, the twin problem of actually calling for an instant replay, and then retrieving the footage for review and reviewing it. Now, for elims, that's not all that difficult: Alliance captain gets ONE coupon, to be used at his/her discretion, end of story. (Quals... big bag of worms, not going to go there, but sooner or later, someone will be complaining that they missed seeding #1 because of a call going against them and they'll demand instant replay for quals too.) But actually getting to recorded footage is going to need MORE equipment. You'll need a monitor. And a recording device (at FRC events, there isn't recording, just streaming, unless the streaming crew also records onsite). And a way to get the footage from "recording" to "reviewing" promptly. Did I mention money? How about the setup time to locate the action in question?


There have been some proposals for instant replay before--the big problems are that #1, the quality of the picture wouldn't have been very good; #2, getting what you want to look at in the picture; #3, the equipment isn't cheap so someone would need to pony up the money; #4, you can't solve more than 2 of the above easily. That being said, I would suspect that if someone (read: YOU) came up with a workable plan and pitched it to an offseason event, they'd at least be willing to listen, even if they didn't try it. And they'd probably go into why it wouldn't work.

[IronicDeadBird]

I dunno what to say that hasn't already been said.

Take a step back, take some deep breaths, if the outcome of this wasn't to your liking then remember this time for what went right and what was good. Dwelling on the negatives in this situation in this manner is not conducive to positive change.

[ThunderousPrime]

There have been some proposals for instant replay before--the big problems are that #1, the quality of the picture wouldn't have been very good; #2, getting what you want to look at in the picture; #3, the equipment isn't cheap so someone would need to pony up the money; #4, you can't solve more than 2 of the above easily. That being said, I would suspect that if someone (read: YOU) came up with a workable plan and pitched it to an offseason event, they'd at least be willing to listen, even if they didn't try it. And they'd probably go into why it wouldn't work.

They already have people operating cameras to livestream the events; why not use a video splitter to split the matches based on the match sounds? It really shouldnt be that hard to do and tbh FIRST needs to step up their game when it comes to recording matches.

Also I see no reason why you should not be allowed to bring your own footage into a discussion. You are trying to right a wrong and not get punished for a mistake that was made. I don't know why this rule is but besides the issue of time (you could easily do this by limiting video review to 2min or something like that) but I'm interested to know why it's not allowed.

I'm also interested to hear about what FIRST has to says about this situation if they havent responded already.

[gblake]

This is getting ridiculous.

My hyperbole meter is pegging.

Here are the blunt facts about the right way (in general) to deal with this sort of situation, when it happens:

The student leader representing the team/alliance that was penalized should have contested the penalty (I assume that one did) by citing a rule that they believed had been violated or applied incorrectly; and by describing the remedial action (allowed by the rules) they wanted the referees to take.
The referees should have used due diligence to investigate the situation and determine the facts of what happened, as well as recollections allowed.
The referees should have then announced to the affected teams a decision that took into account the facts they were able to establish, and the rules that applied to those facts. That decision (of course) must satisfy all rules of the competition.

When I am ref'ing and students want to protest a call; if the students do their part of the process I outlined above, I give them a mental +1 for having learned a valuable skill. When students don't do their part, I try to guide them, but some times it gets tough.

When you get to World Championship levels, if you aren't familiar with all the rules, and with how to register an effective protest, you have done yourself a grave injustice.

Anyone asking FTC refs (who probably don't even have the authority to cause a rematch - I presume that only the FTA has that authority, but I might be wrong) to cause a replay, because of what they believe was a mistaken penalty call; shot themselves in the foot.

So far, I haven't read evidence that a proper protest, containing a proper requested-remedy was lodged, and then rejected capriciously. If I was reading that, I would be upset.

Instead I have been reading about a bunch of other stuff.

So, you can color me grumpy; because, like I said, this is getting ridiculous.

Blake

[cadandcookies]

T
Anyone asking FTC refs (who probably don't even have the authority to cause a rematch - I presume that only the FTA has that authority, but I might be wrong) to cause a replay, because of what they believe was a mistaken penalty call; shot themselves in the foot.


In FTC, the Head Referee has the final say on replaying a match. It is the FTA's responsibility, however, to determine that there was in fact a field fault and that a replay is necessary. As an FTA in FTC, I have never experienced a situation first hand when I brought up the need for a rematch with the head ref and they refused. That being said, I know the head refs in Minnesota personally, and the Minnesota FTC volunteer crew is pretty close. It might be different in other areas-- I know that there's variation on how penalties are called and volunteer roles between regions.

[Kpchem]

...
Anyone asking FTC refs (who probably don't even have the authority to cause a rematch - I presume that only the FTA has that authority, but I might be wrong) to cause a replay, because of what they believe was a mistaken penalty call; shot themselves in the foot.
...


The Head Referee is the one that has the authority, and the only one with that authority. Although you are partially correct because most of the conditions that lead to a replay are technical issues that primarily fall under the FTA.

[gblake]

In FTC, the Head Referee has the final say on replaying a match. It is the FTA's responsibility, however, to determine that there was in fact a field fault and that a replay is necessary. ...Thanks (sincerely) for the clarification of my parenthetical comment.

Let's all notice that after this clarification, the point I was making remains intact - that you are shooting yourself in the foot, barking up the wrong tree, and losing valuable time, if you ask a referee and/or other event staffers to apply the replay-remedy to resolve a protest involving what you feel is a mistaken call.

[smurfgirl]

I'm surprised that in my entire reply this was the part you fixated on.

My point was more relevant to this story, although I've heard this from others.

When all four teams were contesting the ruling, the ref said "You should all be GP and accept the ruling and move on" which was mindblowing to me.

The only thing that was GP was the four teams telling the ref the ruling was wrong.

I had already shared other thoughts related to other points you brought up earlier in this thread, which is why I didn't repeat them again.

Maybe this wasn't the best place to share my frustrations from the other side, but I have also seen many interactions where team members have been incredibly rude and un-GP to refs and other volunteer staff. I wasn't there, so I don't know what happened on either end. It just frustrates me that event volunteers are so often torn apart, in person and online. Sorry for taking things off-topic.

[Mr. Lim]

I don't have any solutions to add to the conversation, but maybe can add some perspective:

https://youtu.be/TdewERComl4?t=2m35s

2013 Einstein.

Our alliance was officially eliminated from the FRC Champs after the loss in this match.

It turns out that a very well-meaning volunteer had miscounted the number of discs scored. They wrote down 64 discs scored instead of 46 on the scoresheet for our opponents, and we lost the match.

Although it's not identical to your situation, it has parallels.

We made our case to the refs, multiple times. We were turned away, multiple times. In fact, at one point we fully accepted that our chance at a World Championship would be taken away due to a scoring error. We pulled our robots off to the side, put our tools away, and reflected on the end of our Einstein run. Shortly after being eliminated from Einstein, we took this picture:

http://i.imgur.com/Ya73ZFvl.jpg

This picture still amazes me to this day. The smiles you see there are genuine. We just had one of the worst possible things imaginable happen to an FRC team: we were officially eliminated on Einstein due to a scoring error! Yet we were still happy that we left everything we had on the field, and were so proud of what he had accomplished - even if we didn't get the chance to move on.

Had our champs ended right then and there, I actually think we would've been okay with it. Genuinely. Call us weird, but I think that is 100% a reflection of the type of people and teams we were/are.

Of course, we didn't exactly give up, either. With the robots for Finals 1 already lined up on the field, our students made one final request to the refs. We bolstered our case, not with video as the rules were very clear on this, but with mathematics. We ultimately presented a "proof" showing that the score was mathematically impossible based on the autonomous score, pyramid points, and the number of unscored discs left on the floor and in the human player stations at the end of the match.

The refs congregated.

The scorers congregated.

Something was happening.

They found the scoring error where 64 was written instead of 46, the volunteer responsible confirmed it, they corrected it, changed the outcome of the match, and pulled the robots off the field to play a deciding SF match instead of the finals.

So yes, this is an example of FRC "getting it right" (although I am sure the situation left a bitter taste to the alliance of 3476, 1640 and 303 - and who could blame them), but this was a very difficult situation that I have to give FIRST and the volunteers a lot of credit for.

[EricH]

They already have people operating cameras to livestream the events; why not use a video splitter to split the matches based on the match sounds? It really shouldnt be that hard to do and tbh FIRST needs to step up their game when it comes to recording matches.

Also I see no reason why you should not be allowed to bring your own footage into a discussion. You are trying to right a wrong and not get punished for a mistake that was made. I don't know why this rule is but besides the issue of time (you could easily do this by limiting video review to 2min or something like that) but I'm interested to know why it's not allowed.


To your first point, that's person. Singular. If you're trying to tell me that one camera is enough, I raise you a case where three refs all saw (or didn't see) the same thing that would have been very difficult to get a camera on with multiple cameras, let alone a single camera. A video splitter would be nice... got some money for FIRST to get one? Remember, and do I need to repeat myself, FIRST doesn't record the footage to my knowledge. AT ALL. So that means that somebody else has to record it.

And I happen to see a very good reason or two why you shouldn't be allowed to bring your own footage into a discussion. First is the crowding around the field. That's one extra person who has to come in, and then leave--and hopefully the review area isn't crowded (har har--ever been down by the field between matches? Yeah. Not quite rush hour on L.A. freeways, but pretty crowded.) Second, the quality of the replay. You bring in your camcorders shooting from the top of the stands, OK. And you view on their screen, you can't see anything, so you hook up to a monitor (which means that everybody's gotta have their adapter cables). Well, maybe the footage is pixelly... or aimed at the wrong robot... or blocked by cheering... or other similar items. Gotta do something about that, maybe. And third, there are a couple of potential fairness complaints. Along the lines of: "We don't have anybody taking video because we can barely get anybody to show up, and this other team has 5 camera operators on all their matches, and all the calls go their way" (yeah, I'm exaggerating) or "We can't get a good angle" or "We had the exact same play as these guys and they got their bad call reversed on video, ours should be too"...


Again, this whole issue has been discussed ad nauseum before. I should know. I started a serious thread (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114964) to discuss the issues and potential solutions a couple years back. (Also take a look at the links in the first post in that thread.)

I'm thinking that this is going to be like the card system. IRI ran that for something like 6 years before FIRST adopted it--for Breakaway!

[Siri]

They found the scoring error where 64 was written instead of 46, the volunteer responsible confirmed it, they corrected it, changed the outcome of the match, and pulled the robots off the field to play a deciding SF match instead of the finals.

So yes, this is an example of FRC "getting it right" (although I am sure the situation left a bitter taste to the alliance of 3476, 1640 and 303 - and who could blame them), but this was a very difficult situation that I have to give FIRST and the volunteers a lot of credit for.I'll jump in on this story as well. I can't speak for 303 and 3476, but I think 610 and us have both learned to love this story, though for very different reasons. It took our team a long time to get over this, not because of the fixed scoring error--that was entirely correct--but because of FIRST's perpetual "the show must go on" attitude, which is what we're talking about now. I offer this as an anecdote in dealing with that show-centric pressure, though our experience is of course less terrible than a 46-->64 scoring error.

When that wrong score first went up, our initial reaction was 'huh? that can't be...', almost immediately replaced with 'oh, cr*p, we've got to prep for finals!' This is a huge deal strategically and in terms of what we focused on in the pit, and we worked on it all throughout the intervening downtime. Then suddenly it was 'change your bumper colors'. What? And on the spot, 'you're playing semi 3'. We blinked, 'hey, wait, we need a timeout. Give us a minute'. A move like that that changes things, playing a different alliance than you'd just prepped for at such a high level. The answer was "you're playing semi 3". (Note that this was in the bad old days before the Einstein showers really interacted with the teams in it. They consciously and systematically altered this in 2014, I suspect based on 610 and our experience.) My drive team was in shock, and I have to admit that I felt blindsided all the way through that immediate match. There's no question we weren't playing our best game for that matchup, and it left me bitter for a long time: not that the matchup happened as it needed to, but that FIRST was so totally show-centric and that they couldn't give me and my kids 6 minutes, or 4 or 3, to wrap their heads around what just happened. To examine the process and conclusion and come to terms with it as correct. But primarily, that I hadn't (when I said 'oh, cr*p, we have to prep for finals') prepared adequately for the eventuality that any change would happen so fast that we ought to have been prepping strategically for two different Einstein matches. There was just no precedent, and I fell back on 'FIRST wouldn't do that'.

There was no precedent for this of course, and in a choice between playing semi 3 or final 1, any unanimous vote is semis 3. Being rushed into a match you knew nothing about after a process you knew nothing about against an alliance that's been fully preparing for the whole time it is nothing like a scoring error. But "waiting for the teams" was never a voting option in the Big Show. So the best line I had for drying tears afterwards was that we'd given it our all under even more pressure than Einstein is supposed to be. Let me tell you, this does nothing for kids that feel like their prep time was deliberately stolen so they'd have to play handicapped against a more ready alliance. Who felt like they'd been duped, and were humiliated that they hadn't coped with it and done what they knew was their best. It was absolutely miserable. You know what did do something to address that? TheoryofTexanCoyotes and Frank Merrick. Thank you.* Thank you. It took a while--too long, due again to the poor timing communication between the show and the teams--but eventually the process started to make sense. There's no way the alliance did this deliberately, and from FIRST it was blindsiding, but it wasn't deliberate. It should've been slower (to play after the decision) and more transparent, but it wasn't personal. We're part of a show, and we deal with that pressure and all that it means. Pain is what you make of it, kids. Pain is what you make of it.

Then one of my kids (my pit captain, still crying) turned to me and said 'next year we're coming back here, and we're GONNA DO IT RIGHT'.
http://wiki.team1640.com/images/2/22/DBX_FRCCMP_140426_csm-57.jpg

That's her there on the right.


*So in the end it took us longer, but thanks in part to their communication, we did end up looking like TheoryofTexanCoyotes in Mr. Lim's photo. The speed with which they did this on their own is a huge testament to the incredible professionalism and immense institutional knowledge of that alliance, and they ended up being an honor to lose to. Congratulations on the win, by the by. And by that I mean winning the 2013 World Championship, since Mr. Lim was too humble to point out how well they ended up!

[Nemo]

Here's my suggestion: focus your energies on influencing improvements and reflecting on the value of the journey. That can result in better future results. Please avoid putting your energy into over the top rhetoric. It is unproductive and does not make you appear wise.

I agree with the idea that the competition aspect is important and is what drives a lot of the effort and success we see in FRC. That only goes so far with me, though. I grow tired of the "competition is everything" soapbox activity, which has been exacerbated by the dual championship announcement. The journey is still where the value lies, and a trophy is just a trophy. If you were likely good enough to win but didn't because an unfortunate circumstance intervened, it doesn't help to get mad about it. I recognize that people are emotional creature that will experience anger and disappointment. Still, hanging onto those feelings isn't going to result in the greatest level of happiness and success in the long run. Better to focus on the objective realities that exist, the positives that came out of the journey, and the aspects that can be improved for the future.

[MrRoboSteve]

For those advocating professional-level instant replay, here's a good article on how Major League Baseball implemented their replay system (http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/70183162/major-league-baseball-instant-replay-may-be-overwhelming), which is considered to be the state of the art. Now think about how much that cost to implement and operate.

For reference, MLB had about $9 billion in revenues last year, vs FIRST revenues of about $55.5 million. FRC cost about $36 million to operate in 2014; FTC about $3 million.

Two final notes:

many people think of "fraud" as a pretty strong word, particularly in the context of critiquing the actions of one volunteer

future employers often use web searches to find out more about potential employees; it's worth examining posts in that context before pushing the "post" button

[Conor Ryan]

Would would be the ethics of calling this a Arena Fault and replaying? Especially if teams and at least one volunteer agree

[nrgy_blast]

Although I firmly believe that most (if not all) head referees are reasonable people and would replay a match if they saw that the call was incorrect, the FRC game manual states that Referees cannot receive any input from video, images, media, etc.

This is where this discussion has headed for me: change the manual! This has gotten ridiculous enough, and FIRST can do better in the future than they have in the past.

[Nemo]

I had a chance to referee an FLL event this year and thought the conferences at the end of the matches were great. The teams and referees go through the scoring chart and verify that it's right at the end of each match. Teams walked away from the matches knowing what deductions were made and what they got credit for, and the students corrected my inevitable mistakes.

I do think it would be worth exploring options for correcting human errors that are bound to occur. I would entertain the option of an FLL style conference at the end of a match to let the teams verify the scoring. That could correct simple numerical errors such as, for example, assigning points to the wrong alliance for end game. Something like that swings a match, and with the current system there's no recourse if mistakes like that happen. It's unnecessary for it to be that way. For some types of errors, it would be an easy discussion and both sides would agree that the points went to the wrong alliance. In some scenarios, I could picture a team clarifying a penalty and admitting that "actually we did XYZ, it wasn't the other alliance." And realistically, sometimes the alliances will disagree and they'll have to just accept what the head referee says like we have now. At least they'd hear the reasoning straight from the ref. "I called a G99 because you did ABC." I'm not proposing a solution to those judgment situations, because human judgment by referees is going to have to take care of those. BUT, I do think a quick conference could help with an error that everybody agrees was an error, and then it can just be resolved quickly and without a bunch of bad feelings.

I am not offering any opinion on whether the scenario in this year's controversial match was an obvious error or not. I am just musing on a process change that I think could help to catch certain human errors and improve the integrity and positive experience of the competition.

It would be a tricky balance, because you'd have some people pushing the limits of grace and professionalism while other people would find a decent balance between competitiveness and respecting the volunteers and the process.

Maybe I'm wrong and this would put undue stress on volunteers. There seems to be an idea that revealing the scoring breakdowns would be bad for volunteers. But I think that would be a welcome bit of transparency, and I think it's unfortunate that currently there's no mechanism for identifying and correcting mistakes that naturally happen occasionally.

[Alan Anderson]

From my perspective, far removed both in space and time from the event, it seems clear to me that replaying the match would have been the wrong thing to do. If the referee did not think that the call was wrong, there was no justification for a replay. Any number of teams wanting a do-over doesn't count. On the other hand, if the referee did agree that the call was wrong, all that needed to be done was to correct the call and adjust the score accordingly.

Asking for the call to be changed based on the collective viewpoints of all the teams seems appropriate. However, if the teams approached the ref with a request for a replay, they were doing the wrong thing.

[Kpchem]

Would would be the ethics of calling this a Arena Fault and replaying? Especially if teams and at least one volunteer agree

<G14> Matches are replayed at the discretion of the Head Referee and only under the following circumstances:
a. Failure of a Field Element that was likely to have impacted which Alliance won the Match.
b. Loss of control of a Robot due to a VERIFIABLE failure of the tournament-supplied FCS computer, FCS software, USB Hub, or Gamepad that was likely to have impacted which Alliance won the Match.
c. Loss of control of all four Robots due to a failure of the Field’s wireless router that was likely to have impacted which Alliance won the Match.

G14 clearly lays out the conditions for a replay. The term "Arena Fault" is not used. There is no clause under the rules to replay a match for a wrong call. The call is simply corrected if the referees agree that the initial call was wrong.


This is where this discussion has headed for me: change the manual! This has gotten ridiculous enough, and FIRST can do better in the future than they have in the past.

What would you change in the manual? Simply removing the clause the prohibits video, images, and media from being used in discussions with the referee?

The problem I have with this is the amount of overhead it adds. Ignoring the costs that official review systems bring upon organizations because that has already been addressed earlier in this thread (and because some could argue that having the teams do the video reduces the cost), the amount of time overhead could quickly become a huge problem. How other major organizations solve this problem is by only giving teams a certain number challenges (the NFL gives each team 2, in the MLB it varies between the game type but it's generally 1-2 per team per game). However at an FTC event, there are many, many teams. I'm going to run through a hypothetical scenario for a 40-team event.

Let's say that, under this system, each team gets 1 "challenge" where they can use video evidence in their arguments with the referee. So the team very calmly approaches the question box and talks to the head referee raising their points. Because of the nature of video evidence, the head referee will need to spend ~3 minutes looking at it, examining it, replaying the video while consulting with the referees involved with the call, and then making a decision. Now let's assume that every single team has an issue with a call made by the referees at some point during the event. 40 teams * 3 minutes per review adds an extra 2 hours to the event. 2 hours that aren't built into the schedule, and cannot be planned for. That's a huge amount of time and if it had to be built into the budget would severly cut into match playing time for teams, because events should not run 2 hours behind schedule.

On top of that, referees catch enough flak as it is for calls that they make, and opening them up to video review would likely only make this worse.

I understand that FIRST is for the teams and that it is important to get the calls right, but a system like this is incredibly hard to implement successfully.

I had a chance to referee an FLL event this year and thought the conferences at the end of the matches were great. The teams and referees go through the scoring chart and verify that it's right at the end of each match. Teams walked away from the matches knowing what deductions were made and what they got credit for, and the students corrected my inevitable mistakes.
...

I know this is done at some events, and I think implementing it as a standard across FIRST would do a lot towards preventing situations/misunderstanings like this from occurring again in the future.

[FTC5110]

The problem I have with this is the amount of overhead it adds.

Granted it would be unresonable to add some kind of review mechanism during qualification matches. However with FTC only 4 alliances go through to eliminations and there are a maximum (tied matches ignored) of 9 matches to determine the division winning alliance. It's hard work making it to eliminations and teams really deserve a fair shot without being cut down by errors.

[Kpchem]

Granted it would be unresonable to add some kind of review mechanism during qualification matches. However with FTC only 4 alliances go through to eliminations and there are a maximum (tied matches ignored) of 9 matches to determine the division winning alliance. It's hard work making it to eliminations and teams really deserve a fair shot without being cut down by errors.

I would agree that possibly giving each alliance a "review" card in addition to their timeout cards is a possible solution to the the time issue, and honestly one I didn't initially consider. It still doesn't solve the problem of the referees being under more scrutiny from the parents and teams, but I'm not sure if that issue can be solved while at the same time introducing a formal review process.

[Foster]

I'd like to thank all the people that responded to this thread that are not presently FTC or VEX referees. We have a huge need in these programs and your willingness to do these jobs is a blessing.

Make sure you contact your nearest FTC or VEX team, there are lots of summer events that you can go to in order to practice your skills.

[EricH]

What would you change in the manual? Simply removing the clause the prohibits video, images, and media from being used in discussions with the referee?

I really don't think that's where he was heading. I suspect that he was aiming at including "challenged score" as a reason for a replay, or something along those lines.


Incidentally, FRC's replay rules were updated for 2015. They now declare that not only does there have to be a field fault for a replay, but it has to have affected the outcome and one or more affected teams have to ask. Though I suspect that "scoring error" could theoretically be counted as a field fault...

[Kpchem]

I really don't think that's where he was heading. I suspect that he was aiming at including "challenged score" as a reason for a replay, or something along those lines.


Fair enough, he could have been referring to that as well. That was my misunderstanding.

Incidentally, FRC's replay rules were updated for 2015. They now declare that not only does there have to be a field fault for a replay, but it has to have affected the outcome and one or more affected teams have to ask. Though I suspect that "scoring error" could theoretically be counted as a field fault...

FTC has a similar clause stating that it has to affect the outcome of the match. But a scoring error does not fall under any of the clauses stated in G14 (failure of a field element, failure of the FCS, or failure of the field router) and therefore can't be used for a replay.

[JeffB]

It's been said before, countless times, and I'm going to say it again. Almost every major sport accepts video replays. Even Major League Baseball is instituting it for next year.

This is at the heart of the problems you're running into. You're right. This IS FIRST. It's a high school competition. How many high school sports accept video reply?

You're discussing a cell phone video. Do you believe it would be more fair for teams that have more members volunteering to be able to get more camera angles and thus have a better chance at a video replay than other teams? Would that be a "justice" in your mind?

People that are suggesting you move on aren't doing so for their benefit. They're removed from the emotion and are trying to find a reasonable fix. What you're asking for is an unlikely scenario. You stated the other teams only agreed with you after you shifted towards asking for a replay rather than a score correction. This makes it sound less like they entirely agreed with you.

It happened. It sounds frustrating. You make a point about impacting change. I'm not sure any meaningful change has ever resulted from ranting on a forum. I'm also not sure how much weight I'd put into a point laced with hyperbole. Calm the tone of your post and send it to FIRST. It's much easier to find middle ground with two rational arguments.

[bluuwazu2]

I would like to chime in here, as I am a mentor of Team 5026, and have been able to watch all the posts. I do think it is unfortunate that Cougar Robotics was not able to play in the finals, and looking at the video, I would mostly agree that it was a questionable call. I think the referee saw the way Eagle was defending us, and that they pushed us onto the tube, and saw our robot pull it over. If they applied the rule that an opposing robot cannot cause a team to incur their own penalty, I can see how this could have been interpreted. Like I said though, I think it should have gone the other way and I believe 3 of the 4 teams agreed with this in principle.

I would really like to point out just a few things though that need considered. It is interesting to me that it isn't Cougar that feels vilified and torn apart. They aren't complaining about grave injustices, Fraud or eternal failings, at least not that I have seen. I walked by ERX pit several times and noticed that the team was very visibly shaken and HOT, while Cougar was talking to other teams, including mine, and trying to put this in perspective. Now with this petition, all the forums and such, I think ERX, you really don't understand the damage you are doing to yourself, and to the FIRST community.

What is happening is that all of this vitriol is making this look just like High School football and basketball, the two sports funded so highly above robotics. Angry students, coaches and parents that just can't see how that blind zebra is allowed to referee their sport. This isn't what this sport is all about! 5026 Tesla Coils could have just as easily been writing this same post because of a call made in round 1 of the qualifiers. Up against HotWired, there was a penalty called that we pushed our rolling goal into their parking zone. We weren't even close, video replay is very clear that HotWired pushed the tube in, and we lost our first qualifier. Think of how the picking alliances would have changed if this call had been made correctly. We would have been 2nd picking captain instead of 5th, and things could have been much different. Were our kids upset about the call? Of course! Did they go to the box and question the call? Yes, with their mentors encouragement. The point is, the call was not reversed, we lost, had to regain our composure, still won 7 of 9 matches, with the 2nd or 3rd highest RP of the division. What we did not do though, is let it destroy our dreams of the future and completely challenge all the work all the FIRST volunteers are putting into this program. And I know you are going to come back with "but this was the SemiFinals, not the qualifiers, but don't insult all our intelligence! Everyone knows how important those qualifiers are, because only 12 of 68 teams gets to move on, and one bad game can ruin the chances of being a picking captain!

This program is not all about crowning a World Champion. It is about Dean Kaman's vision of becoming leaders in society through STEM fields. The championships are fun, and they are a huge investment, but the real deal is that I have a daughter in her sophomore year already receiving attention from Universities and Engineering programs. She's a Dean's List finalist this year, and already has her first scholarship for school. I'm not bragging her up or I would name names, I'm just saying, WOW. Have we forgotten what this is about just a little bit? Our team pumped a couple thousand dollars and a couple thousand hours into this program just like everyone else. We had to raise an ungodly amount of money to get through Supers and Worlds just like the other 127 teams.

Eagle, I'm sorry about this experience. I know it hurts. I know because last year, you were picked by Hotwired, and Coils moved up to 2nd picking captain, when we thought we probably could have played just a little better with them, and believe me we tried to convince them of that. We lost in our semi's last year because of a very bad call by a referee, which we tried in vain to protest. This year, we were 5th in the standings, and felt like we could have played really well with Cougar, and maybe could have been the combination to take down Redneks in the other division in the finals. You are an awesome team that builds a fantastic product each year, and other teams look to you for guidance.

Don't let this very negative experience destroy 3 years of good work. I would hate for this to end over one bad experience that really means nothing at the start of next season.

We will miss you next year. This was the Tesla Coils final try at the Championship, at least for a while. Graduation and FRC have taken all but a couple of our warm bodies. We have made great friends at World's and at Supers in the West. We made it to Worlds 3 of our 4 years. What an incredible and valuable experience for our kids!

Remember, it's not all about winning.....It is all about teaching!

[Tom Line]

From my perspective, far removed both in space and time from the event, it seems clear to me that replaying the match would have been the wrong thing to do. If the referee did not think that the call was wrong, there was no justification for a replay. Any number of teams wanting a do-over doesn't count. On the other hand, if the referee did agree that the call was wrong, all that needed to be done was to correct the call and adjust the score accordingly.

Asking for the call to be changed based on the collective viewpoints of all the teams seems appropriate. However, if the teams approached the ref with a request for a replay, they were doing the wrong thing.

Yes, but going to a team and saying "that call was wrong, we should play again" is a lot more likely to get a favorable reaction than if you were to say "that call was wrong, you guys should have lost".

[Sean Raia]

I grow tired of the "competition is everything" soapbox activity, which has been exacerbated by the dual championship announcement. The journey is still where the value lies, and a trophy is just a trophy. If you were likely good enough to win but didn't because an unfortunate circumstance intervened, it doesn't help to get mad about it. I recognize that people are emotional creature that will experience anger and disappointment. Still, hanging onto those feelings isn't going to result in the greatest level of happiness and success in the long run. Better to focus on the objective realities that exist, the positives that came out of the journey, and the aspects that can be improved for the future.

This sums it all up for me

[Alan Anderson]

Yes, but going to a team and saying "that call was wrong, we should play again" is a lot more likely to get a favorable reaction than if you were to say "that call was wrong, you guys should have lost".

Asking to replay a match based on a disputed call shouldn't get a favorable reaction in any case. The rules do not -- and in my opinion should not -- provide for such a thing. If the referees stand by the call, then accept it and move on. If the call is deemed wrong, a replay is not necessary. Just correct it.

[cadandcookies]

Asking to replay a match based on a disputed call shouldn't get a favorable reaction in any case. The rules do not -- and in my opinion should not -- provide for such a thing. If the referees stand by the call, then accept it and move on. If the call is deemed wrong, a replay is not necessary. Just correct it.

Agreed. In my opinion the only reasons for a replay is a field fault. If a ref missed a call, but realizes it, then it's not a valid reason to replay. Fix the score and move on. Replaying the match is a waste of everyone's time if we know what the outcome should have been.

[gblake]

Agreed. In my opinion the only reasons for a replay is a field fault. If a ref missed a call, but realizes it, then it's not a valid reason to replay. Fix the score and move on. Replaying the match is a waste of everyone's time if we know what the outcome should have been.I'm not disagreeing with you. Instead, I want to summarize what was discussed earlier in this thread.

For the 2105 season, whether to conduct a replay in the situation being discussed wasn't a matter of opinion. It was a matter governed by the rules.

You and the authors of the rules essentially agree about this.

[cadandcookies]

I'm not disagreeing with you. Instead, I want to summarize what was discussed earlier in this thread.

For the 2015 season, whether to conduct a replay in the situation being discussed wasn't a matter of opinion. It was a matter governed by the rules.

You and the authors of the rules essentially agree about this.

Yup. We do, on this partiular matter. I'm still saying the same thing I was six pages ago. That's part of why this thread has rubbed me wrong this entire time, and why that petition floating around irritates me, even if it has some good fragments of points.

[MichaelMcQuinn]

I had a chance to referee an FLL event this year and thought the conferences at the end of the matches were great. The teams and referees go through the scoring chart and verify that it's right at the end of each match. Teams walked away from the matches knowing what deductions were made and what they got credit for, and the students corrected my inevitable mistakes.

I do think it would be worth exploring options for correcting human errors that are bound to occur. I would entertain the option of an FLL style conference at the end of a match to let the teams verify the scoring. That could correct simple numerical errors such as, for example, assigning points to the wrong alliance for end game. Something like that swings a match, and with the current system there's no recourse if mistakes like that happen. It's unnecessary for it to be that way. For some types of errors, it would be an easy discussion and both sides would agree that the points went to the wrong alliance. In some scenarios, I could picture a team clarifying a penalty and admitting that "actually we did XYZ, it wasn't the other alliance." And realistically, sometimes the alliances will disagree and they'll have to just accept what the head referee says like we have now. At least they'd hear the reasoning straight from the ref. "I called a G99 because you did ABC." I'm not proposing a solution to those judgment situations, because human judgment by referees is going to have to take care of those. BUT, I do think a quick conference could help with an error that everybody agrees was an error, and then it can just be resolved quickly and without a bunch of bad feelings.

I am not offering any opinion on whether the scenario in this year's controversial match was an obvious error or not. I am just musing on a process change that I think could help to catch certain human errors and improve the integrity and positive experience of the competition.

It would be a tricky balance, because you'd have some people pushing the limits of grace and professionalism while other people would find a decent balance between competitiveness and respecting the volunteers and the process.

Maybe I'm wrong and this would put undue stress on volunteers. There seems to be an idea that revealing the scoring breakdowns would be bad for volunteers. But I think that would be a welcome bit of transparency, and I think it's unfortunate that currently there's no mechanism for identifying and correcting mistakes that naturally happen occasionally.

Could you expand more on how you would take a FRC Game like Aerial Assist, which is scored on the dot, and have a conference with all the teams like FLL? How does it work in FLL?

[EricH]

Could you expand more on how you would take a FRC Game like Aerial Assist, which is scored on the dot, and have a conference with all the teams like FLL? How does it work in FLL?

As far as how it works in FLL... It's been a while since I reffed a couple FLL tournaments, but in essence the kids and the refs check over the field and see what's been placed (or displaced) for how many points.


For Aerial Assist (or Ultimate Ascent, or Rebound Rumble), the only way you'd be able to do something like that would be to have one extra display on somebody's screen, something like X scored Y in manner Z for ABCD points, broken down for the entire alliance (I wouldn't have both alliances on the same screen as a default). Or, more likely: Y was scored in manner Z. To pick on AA, I would probably use the LAST screen from each cycle for each alliance--the one right before "submit"--and have that in miniature times however many cycles were scored.

For Recycle Rush (or Logomotion, Rack 'n' Roll, or Triple Play), it's a lot easier...

[gblake]

... that petition floating around ...Scooby Doo says, "Ruh??? Rhat Rhetition?"

[cadandcookies]

Scooby Doo says, "Ruh??? Rhat Rhetition?"

The petition can be found here: https://www.change.org/p/first-for-inspiration-and-recognition-of-science-and-technology-re-evaluate-ftc-to-make-it-more-fair-just-and-systematic?

The value and analysis of said petition wil be left to the reader.

[Gregor]

The petition can be found here: https://www.change.org/p/first-for-inspiration-and-recognition-of-science-and-technology-re-evaluate-ftc-to-make-it-more-fair-just-and-systematic?

The value and analysis of said petition wil be left to the reader.

I very much disagree with request (demand?) 1C.

"c) A "No Callback" clause whereas penalties not called during a match cannot be "added" into scores post-match; such a situation warrants a replay"

[IronicDeadBird]

I very much disagree with request (demand?) 1C.

"c) A "No Callback" clause whereas penalties not called during a match cannot be "added" into scores post-match; such a situation warrants a replay"

a match has almost always been defined roughly as
MATCH – a two (2) minute and thirty (30) second period of time in which ALLIANCES play RECYCLE RUSH
this no callback clause would mean if a robot were to detach a piece on the field and nobody noticed till field reset they could get away with it. This would mean ref's would have the additional job of focusing on specific robots and seeing if any bits or bobs fell off.

[Foster]

It's sad that you need to sign it before you can comment on it.

I think this is the wrong thing to do. The hype around this does not warrant the change in the rules they want.

/sigh

[gblake]

Folks - I'm sorry that I asked about that petition - Now that I have read it, I can't unread it; so the best I can do is ignore it. - On multiple levels, it is a dead-on-arrival, embarassing mess. - Please just let it fade away - Blake

[Michael Corsetto]

Folks - I'm sorry that I asked about that petition - Now that I have read it, I can't unread it; so the best I can do is ignore it. - On multiple levels, it is a dead-on-arrival, embarassing mess. - Please just let it fade away - Blake

Agreed.

Interestingly, I learned from the petition comments that there is a vocal group of disgruntled Coaches/Parents from the greater Sacramento area that are dissatisfied with the quality of Judging at their local FTC events.

Also, if you are ever interested in a forum where only one side's opinions are voiced, create a change.org petition and read the comments... :rolleyes:

-Mike

[EricH]

I agree with Mike and Blake.

1a: This is a technical nightmare that, probably 90% of the time, isn't going to make a difference other than the event ends later.
1b: See "question box".
1c: So... if I, as a ref, see a foul in the last 1 second and can't call it before the match stops (for example, my tablet locks out the foul count), it doesn't get counted/called? What if it's the petition starter's team being the victim of a pin... and that non-call is the reason they lose? Hmm... makes you think, doesn't it? All kinds of problems with this one.
2: Fair... but again, a logistical mess. My proposal would be to further separate the FTC and FRC championship events. (Also see: Championsplit making more FTC spots)
3: "testimonials" and "reasonable debate" can easily turn into "flamewar" due to emotions.

4: Don't get me started. All I'll say is that there are mechanisms already in place for this. Conflicts of interest are known to all parties that need to know about them. And, just for the record: I have been known to pull myself out of discussions involving teams I'm affiliated with, by simply not entering them.

5: That's the ONLY thing I can agree with, potentially. Maybe not mandatory change, but a mandatory discussion of the call within the zebra herd, for all referees who saw something.



I have one other, final, statement.

If you think that the referees are the problem, YOU are the solution. Volunteer as a referee. Or a judge. Or an inspector. The other side has its own horror stories.

[Nemo]

Could you expand more on how you would take a FRC Game like Aerial Assist, which is scored on the dot, and have a conference with all the teams like FLL? How does it work in FLL?

Certainly Aerial Assist would pose a set of issues. FTC hasn't really had games like that, though. Quite a bit of the information necessary to calculate the score is sitting on the field at the end of the match in FTC games.

I've only done the one FLL event, but we simply talked to the teams and explained the scoring at the end of each match. We had a checklist that listed each mission, and I told them how many points they got for which things, then we all signed the paper. If they had missed some points that they thought they had, I explained why. In a couple of cases the students pointed out a mistake that I made, I agreed with them, and I changed it.

[GaryVoshol]

I've only done the one FLL event, but we simply talked to the teams and explained the scoring at the end of each match. We had a checklist that listed each mission, and I told them how many points they got for which things, then we all signed the paper. If they had missed some points that they thought they had, I explained why. In a couple of cases the students pointed out a mistake that I made, I agreed with them, and I changed it.
FLL has paper scoring as described above. Almost all points are determined based on the condition of the field at the end of the game. There's an occasional exception for a mission that is scored as it is completed.

FRC has been scoring near-real-time for several years now, either automatically or by entering it on tablets. Scores can be corrected post-match if needed - if something was missed before the buzzer, or if something was entered incorrectly.

When I made my comments about considering a replay in FTC (way upthread), I mentioned that I didn't know the FTC game. When it was posted that there was a scoring error, I wrongly assumed that there was some kind of automatic scoring that had failed. That would have been the basis for a replay. But it now sounds to me that the scoring was manually done based on field conditions. In that is the case, there could be some kind of team review of the scores like FLL. But remember, in FLL there's only one ref marking the score sheet. If the FTC scores are based on the observations of more than one ref, then the GDC probably figured that was the accuracy check and a separate team sign-off wasn't needed.