Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened? [Archive]

Alex Cormier

16-04-2007, 15:17

Well, i am not surprised about how long it took for someone to make a whole thread about this. I am disapointed in the reactions of individuals not on either team on how they are reacting to this and what thier thoughts are. I have talked to mentors on both teams and they feel bad at what happened and frustrated. I have sent out a few PM's to other people about thier posting of this issue. I have grecieved anything from i agree with you too, forget you i have my thoughts and im stubborn i don't like them anymore.

But i do ask one thing, please no bashing of one team becuase of what happended and thinking a team is no longer GP and is horrible and such. Would your grandmother be proud of how this discussion is going about? Atleast, i know my grandmother would be proud in what i am trying to do.

It seems every year there is one heated discussion about a little event such as this one every year. Hopefully one of these eyars this will stop. It's just a game, it's for HS'ers to learn, get out of the house, better prepare themselves for college and life, see a diffrent side of science and technology. This is not a wrestling league, so act like civil people and treat others the way you would like to be treated.

xzvrw2

16-04-2007, 15:22

wow
i am shocked about how this match was called.
the arm was still connected to the ringer also.
now the arm is completly off of 1114s robot.
the refs counted that the ringer that was scored was apart of 1114s robot because their arm was hanging there on it.
i will say no more.
there are some people on a team that frequently gets this done to that dont want to go tonationals anymore.

IndySam

16-04-2007, 15:22

For those of you who are curious, and I know many of you are, here's a link to footage of Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, in which 1114, 469 and 1523 are eliminated.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8214223692796016767

Notice that 1114 is pinned for about 30 seconds, then driven into (hard) while their arm is tangled in the rack by team 48. Of course, the arm snaps in half, which is to be expected from what seems to me to be an intentional decision to do just that.

Note that there was a ten point penalty in this match for pinning, and no penalty at all for anything else.

I'm going to disagree with you here. I seriously doubt that they could see through the rack from the other side of the field that the arm was about to break and that hit wasn’t hard at all. They were just pushed while the arm was in a bad position and it broke.

Hard defense yes, intentional destruction and disqualification, no way.

Just my humble opinion.

PandaMan

16-04-2007, 15:23

I agree that we should keep this discussion as civil as possible. From the video it is quite apparent that 1114 was caught up on the rack and that they were unable to move backwards and free themselves (we can see that 48 has more pushing in this scenario). 48's continuous pushing of 1114's robot is questionable. Therefore only 48's drive team can truly tell us what happened.

Aside from the actual breaking of the arm, I would also like to know why this tube wasn't counted as scored?

slickguy2007

16-04-2007, 15:29

I saw this match personally, so....

From what I saw, 48 was playing heavy defense on 1114. They knew the kinds of scores 1114 could put up especially when left alone, so 48 was pushing 1114 however they could. 1114 was first being pushed into the rack and their arm started bending backwards(the rack was being pushed). 1114 got free and started to place a tube on the middle row, and that's when it happened. 1114 was placing a tube on a middle row spider leg from an angle. 1114's base was being pushed forward by 48 but their arm was still hanging onto the tube which was in place on the spider leg. 1114 was close to dropping the tube on, all they had to do was let go but before they had a chance their arm snapped off.

This is what I remember.

edit//
The tube did not count because the arm was still attached to the tube.

PandaMan

16-04-2007, 15:31

The tube did not count because the arm was still attached to the tube.

I thought that rule had changed, as the head ref on our field told me that as long as the tube was supported by the rack, the tube would be counted as scores (Refer to QF 1-1 on Galileo).

Frenchie

16-04-2007, 15:33

This match unfortunately highlights only one of the several bad call made at curie. Semi Finals and finals are the most blatant examples of such claim.

Semi Finals 1 match 3. The match start with an iffy autonomous mode: 1114 releases the tube, but does not back up far enough and is still in contact with it. Although the stinger is cleared and the bar supporting the keeper, the referee takes it off. Now, this decision would have been reasonable, had it been consistent with other matches. During finals - 2, Foley Freeze goes for autonomous, clears the stinger, brings the keeper down on the spider leg and... does not have enough time to even open their gripper. Mrs. Referee comes, looks at it, and says it is scored.

But let's go on with the semi-finals. Although 48 often paid attention to always pin for less than 10 seconds, they did pin for a long time on many occasions. I was disappointed to realize the referees were paying so much attention to 1114 that they did not even count down for any pinning done on 469. Furthermore, a robot is supposed to back up 3 feet after each time it pins another robot, which pretty much means pinning, backing up a second, pinning, backing up a second is not acceptable. Finally, when a team is entangled in the rack and its arm begins to bend horribly, pushing further to break it should have been illegal, one way or another.

But I digress, let's go onto one last problem with this match: descoring. 469 scored a ringer on spider leg #6 I believe (did not have time to watch the video again), released it (passed the stinger and supported by leg) but was then pushed back by 48. The ringer was caught by the friction material riveted on the side of the robot's gripper and while swinging around, 469 took the already scored ringer with them. Unfortunately, this situation occurred rarely and referees counted on the end game only to record the score. I'd also like to point out that the ringer to which 1114's arm was attached after it was ripped off did not count, although the rules state that any part that is detached from the robot is not part of the robot anymore.

Conclusion on this match? I'll take the word of the referee herself for it: "defense was not unreasonable" (there was, originally, no penalty given) and 1114's arm riping off was just "one more design flaw". Now, "I'd love to talk to you, but I have another match to ref"

I feel bad, however, for bashing 1732, 67 and 48, because what happened to them during the finals is way worse than anything else I've seen.

During Finals match 2, and I mean, the REAL finals match #2, the #1 alliance outscored the #2 alliance by as much as 30 points I believe. I was however disappointed that the referees had forgotten to count 1 ringer for the 2nd seed alliance, which would have bumped up their score by 4 points. Although it would not have changed the outcome of the match, it was clearly one more mistake made on this field. The 2nd seed alliance naturally complained about that. Without any other explanation than "a field fault was made", the match was canceled and replayed. the #1 alliance lost the second match of finals because 4 points were forgotten...

P.S. Sorry to those who tried to dissuade me from posting. I tried to make it as tame as possible :$

slickguy2007

16-04-2007, 15:34

I thought that rule had changed, as the head ref on our field told me that as long as the tube was supported by the rack, the tube would be counted as scores (Refer to QF 1-1 on Galileo).

I believe that's just how they scored it. I am not sure what rules they were going by(Funny I even had to say this).

xzvrw2

16-04-2007, 15:35

This is what I remember.

edit//
The tube did not count because the arm was still attached to the tube.

my whole thing is, the arm wasnt attached to the robot any more tho, so how could it have been apart of the robot?

jgannon

16-04-2007, 15:36

Several people have already said this, but I really don't think we're going to get anywhere worthwhile with the discussion of whether this play was too aggressive. However:
the refs counted that the ringer that was scored was apart of 1114s robot because their arm was hanging there on it.
This seems to me to be a huge mistake. This (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=1279) Q&A response indicates that 1114's arm was a field element by the end of the match, so if the tube was HANGING (which it looks to be doing), then it ought to have counted. Was the ruling really that the tube was still in 1114's possession?

xzvrw2

16-04-2007, 15:39

Several people have already said this, but I really don't think we're going to get anywhere worthwhile with the discussion of whether this play was too aggressive. However:

This seems to me to be a huge mistake. This (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=1279) Q&A response indicates that 1114's arm was a field element by the end of the match, so if the tube was HANGING (which it looks to be doing), then it ought to have counted. Was the ruling really that the tube was still in 1114's possession?

yes the ruling was that the tube was apart of 1114s robot therefore not scored.

slickguy2007

16-04-2007, 15:39

my whole thing is, the arm wasnt attached to the robot any more tho, so how could it have been apart of the robot?

I agree, I am just stating what happened.

Joel J

16-04-2007, 15:47

Nawaid Ladak

16-04-2007, 15:49

does anybody have names of the refs and what regionals they reffed at.

if these guys have never worked together this season, then i think it is fair to say that a whole team of refs should be put onto a field, not ref x from y regional and ref w from z regional...

That could solve alot of these problems for next year.

I was uncival about this in another thread, therefore there is no need for me to restate my opinion.

Frenchie

16-04-2007, 15:53

I'm on 1114's side on this one.. not only because of the fatality suffered by their robot, but because of how consistently poor the calls were by the refs this weekend. I don't know.. 229 partially suffered from a few bad calls (scored ringers not counting, tipped alliance partners not resulting in any form of penalization, etc), but nothing really that compares to what I witnessed in the divisional eliminations as I walked around.

I'm speechless this year.

No one could have predicted how nationals turned out this year, AND FOR GOOD REASON.

The referees decisions are final-- and that has been shown by the record books, but I'll just have to say their POWER in these situations does not strongly correlate with their ABILITY to ensure that these finals calls are just-- that is, inline with what has been written in the rules.

This whole year has been weird, and I must say that I'm glad its over.

I am sorry to say that I agree. FIRST Teams are asked to be more and more professional as the years come by, and yet the infrastructure itself remains very amateurish. Maybe we should try and work out the few glitches that remain before trying to mass export a beta product.

Francois.

Nawaid Ladak

16-04-2007, 15:54

I'm on 1114's side on this one.. not only because of the fatality suffered by their robot, but because of how consistently poor the calls were by the refs this weekend. I don't know.. 229 partially suffered from a few bad calls (scored ringers not counting, tipped alliance partners not resulting in any form of penalization, etc), but nothing really that compares to what I witnessed in the divisional eliminations as I walked around.

I'm speechless this year.

No one could have predicted how nationals turned out this year, AND FOR GOOD REASON.

The referees decisions are final-- and that has been shown by the record books, but I'll just have to say their POWER in these situations does not strongly correlate with their ABILITY to ensure that these finals calls are just-- that is, inline with what has been written in the rules.

This whole year has been weird, and I must say that I'm glad its over.

I just wanted to bring up a suggestion, Just like they have in football, why don't these refs have a booth review, just like the refs bothered to do at waterloo in qf2.4. allow a team to throw a red flag onto the field to call a challenge, just like in football, if the challenge is overturned, then it's overturned, but if the ruling stands, then that alliance loses their timeout. I think that would really help stuff like this from ever happening.

IndySam

16-04-2007, 16:02

I just wanted to bring up a suggestion, Just like they have in football, why don't these refs have a booth review, just like the refs bothered to do at waterloo in qf2.4. allow a team to throw a red flag onto the field to call a challenge, just like in football, if the challenge is overturned, then it's overturned, but if the ruling stands, then that alliance loses their timeout. I think that would really help stuff like this from ever happening.

In football they have 20 cameras covering every play and very expensive production equipment. Do you want your entry fee to double?

We have to rely on humans and humans aren’t perfect. We just need to suck up our GP and go on.

All-in-all I think the refs do an amazing job under pretty intense and stressful situation. I’m glad so many hard working people give up their vacation days and come help us play our game.

AdamHeard

16-04-2007, 16:04

We recieved ramming penalties for defense much less rough than that... The reffing was not consistent this year.

Rick

16-04-2007, 16:10

I'm speechless this year.

No one could have predicted how nationals turned out this year, AND FOR GOOD REASON.

The referees decisions are final-- and that has been shown by the record books, but I'll just have to say their POWER in these situations does not strongly correlate with their ABILITY to ensure that these finals calls are just-- that is, inline with what has been written in the rules.

This whole year has been weird, and I must say that I'm glad its over.

I agree as well.

The tube should have counted since once the arm broke off it is considered part of the field. I use a 50 question test on rules before a 121 driver can touch joysticks. From the 4 competitions I've seen this year, the rules need to simpler and enforced.

Steve W

16-04-2007, 16:11

I can see that this thread is quickly going down hill. I am closing the thread till tomorrow morning so that cooler heads will prevail. When re opened please think about what and how you are saying it.

Steve W

16-04-2007, 16:35

I have re opened by request. Please remember that we are here to discuss facts, not to slam teams or refs. They are volunteers.

Kate00

16-04-2007, 16:35

I was on the field for that match, and would like to offer my perspective.

1114's arm was clearly bending back, as you can see in the video, and speaking as a defensive driver, when you are pinning someone against the rack, you can generally clearly see their arm and whether or not it is flexing/at the point of breaking. Regardless of whether or not they saw the arm flexing, it was still an excessive use of force. Excessive force is a DQ. There was no DQ.

What I found most despicable was the celebration of 48 after 1114's arm snapped off. You can't see it in the video, but it was clearly seen by several eyewitnesses, myself included. This is entirely against everything that I've ever been taught in the years that I have been in first. I know, I know, compete on the field and cooperate off the field, but celebrating when your opponents arm comes off - clearly using excessive force - that goes beyond "competing" and into "willful destruction," which was not a part of the gracious professionalism that I was taught.

Myself and several other people witnessed 48 trying to break 1114's arm off in Toronto. They then went through the pits bragging about their defense on 1114. They also played defense on 1114 during practice matches both at GTR and Championships, which was clearly witnessed.

As to the "design flaw," in the video, you can clearly see 1114's arm moving the 330 pound + friction rack. In all of the events I was at this year (Waterloo, GTR and Championships), I never saw anyone else move the rack. (Edit: never saw anyone else's arm spin the rack in a circle while attached to a spider leg). Ever. Their arm spun the rack before snapping off. I have not seen the design myself, however, this is in my mind irrefutable proof of the solid design I know that 1114 would produce.

Alex Cormier

16-04-2007, 16:48

They also played defense on 1114 during practice matches both at GTR and Championships, which was clearly witnessed.

Why should Defensive based bots not be able to practice what they are designed for? Yes i agree to some extent, but the intent of practice is just that, practice. They have just as much of a right to play as their robot is made to do as any other robot.

I will agree with you on some what of a front that excessive D shouldn't be played in practice matches. I see that there are two matches for practice, in one match play D on any team as possible, as much as possible. Maybe match two plays less D and roam around the other end of the field and test new ideas?

In the end, i don't care if you have a purely Offense robot or purely Defense robot; they both have the right to practice what their robot's capabilities are.

meaubry

16-04-2007, 16:53

Thanks Steve W. for keeping an eye on this thread - much apprciated.

Everyone - keep this one civil and relavent to the thread topic.
Discuss what happened in an appropriate manner.

I didn't witness it, as I was over at Archimedes at the time.

Carry on

Karthik

16-04-2007, 16:55

In the end, i don't care if you have a purely Offense robot or purely Defense robot; they both have the right to practice what their robot's capabilities are.

There's another thread to discuss defense in practice matches. Let's leave this thread to talk about the direct issues and facts surrounding SF1.3. Thanks.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?p=608676&highlight=defense+practice#post608676

Karthik1

16-04-2007, 16:58

I will not state my opinion on that (Curie Semifinal 1 - 3) particular match. but in regards to defense in a practice match: I think its is a good practice for teams to inform and request the other teams that they will be defending prior to a practice match. I know that my team 1504 did just that when we played defense in a practice match at nationals.

Travis Hoffman

16-04-2007, 17:19

I'm sorry, I've been too busy collecting facts and personal statements from independent sources to really digest the rest of this thread prior to this post. I will leave the replies to those posts to honest people who feel the need to provide factual evidence on this extremely unfortunate situation. One would hope and pray that rumor-mongerers and piler-oners would stay away from this. Some would truly appreciate this gesture of doing and saying nothing.

The following was sent to me from our pit mentor, Donnell, who is notorious for remaining in the pit during elimination rounds due to some strange superstition. I know this doesn't answer all the questions I'm sure are swimming around inside all your little heads right about now, but perhaps this is a good start at finding out the truth about all of this?

"After the robot came back to the pits (after the Curie Finals) I went to congratulate Johnny (Pasco) and he was visibly upset and shaken. I thought he was just exhausted from all the excitement, as his face was red and he had his head down on his arms leaning on the "War Wagon". I put my arm around him and congratulated him on a great season. He just lifted his head up and stared into space and shrugged. I told him to hold his head up because he had a great season as a new driver (winning a regional) and didn't do any worse in Atlanta than we did last year. He just said, "Yeah, but I broke their arm." I asked, whose arm, and he said 1114. This is the first I had heard about the whole incident. I was surprised that this specific incident was bothering him that much considering it was a whole tier of the Curie Finals prior to what he had just completed. Not knowing the severity of the incident, I just told him not to worry about it because everybody's robot gets damaged, especially in the Championship Finals. Pasco said, "No, you don't understand, their arm just snapped in half - I didn't mean to do it and I wasn't trying to do it, I didn't know what happened until it broke." …….he stopped short and said that he didn't want to talk about it anymore, he didn't know what to do…..then he walked away."

************************************************** *************

...

Nawaid Ladak

16-04-2007, 17:34

XaulZan11

16-04-2007, 17:37

Here is my prospective of the match. I was the human player on 1732.

I didn't even know 1114 broke thier arm until after the eliminations when someone from my team told me. While I wasn't specifically watching 48 and 1114, I wouldn't assume that 48 knew that they were about to break 1114 arm. As most of you probably know, its very hard to see whats going on on the other side of the rack.

I also heard or saw no celebrating from 48 after 1114's arm broke. Standing right next to them during the match and after the match, they didn't say any thing about breaking thier arm. They also showed great gracious professionalism throughout the eliminations, also. After we got eliminated by the 2nd seeded alliance in the finals, 48's coach reminded the whole alliance to shake hands with the other alliance and congradulate them. I would be suprised if they did celebrate breaking thier arm in anyway. However, if they did intentially break or celebrate the breaking of the arm, that's awful and shouldn't be tolerated. If that is the case, I would like to apologize to 1114 and the rest of thier alliance.

It's one of those things you hate to see happen, especially in the elimination rounds. As it has been stated before, we shouldn't jump to conclusions or start rumors that are not true.

Arefin Bari

16-04-2007, 18:01

I was down on the field watching that match with Koko Ed, Joel J. and Travis Hoffman from team 48. This is what I have to say after spending some time with the drive team of 1114.

1) I don't want to be yelled at if I was a coach and I went down there with my driveteam to seek for answers to "Why isn't the ringer scored," or "How were the calls made?"

2) After our machine (that we put our whole heart into for 6 weeks) breaks, I don't want to be questioned about the quality of my robot.

3) I believe everyone was watching the finals on einstein. Please make the playing field leveled.

In my 6 years of involvement in FIRST, this is the first time there were many complains and mistakes. There has to be something done so the kids can enjoy/play the game without having to go back in their pit and cry.

Scott team 48

16-04-2007, 18:03

Im not going to touch on the unfortunate incident during sf 1-3, i really can't word it any better than Travis did. However the issue about Canada has me disturbed:

Myself and several other people witnessed 48 trying to break 1114's arm off in Toronto. They then went through the pits bragging about their defense on 1114. They also played defense on 1114 during practice matches both at GTR and Championships, which was clearly witnessed.

48 was not trying to break 1114's arm of in Toronto, nor were we trying to break it off in Atlanta. In Toronto we played defense against 1114, in our opinion they were the strongest offensive robot there, so to play effective defense against such a strong team is something to be proud of. We were proud of playing effective D on 1114 because they were so strong, not because we wanted to break them, it is not, and has never been our intention to break any robot that we are on the field against.

Now, you can accept that as the truth, or you can continue believing that we set out with the sole intent of breaking 1114, who up until this incident we were proud to call close friends. I only hope that in the future we can call them friends again.

Karthik

16-04-2007, 18:09

I've taken some time to calm down, and now I'm ready to post some facts. I'll leave my opinions out of this, because they're clearly clouded by my emotions. PM me if you want to hear my rambles.

Fact: Team 48 had been posting on CD numerous times about the virtues of defense. You can search for these posts. Not a big deal, since defense is part of the game. Until you put into the context of this match.

Fact: Team 48 "joked" about wanting to play defense on 1114, whille being their partner, so that they could "show off their defense"

Fact: Team 48 nearly ripped 1114's arm off in a qualifying match at the Toronto Regional. They backed away, allowing 1114 to proceed, and score an additional 3 tubes. A mentor from 48 then said (paraphrasing from memory) "If we weren't so concerned about your arm, we could have completely shut you down that match"

Fact: Members of Team 48's driveteam, led by the Drive Coach, celebrated when 1114's arm snapped off. This was witnessed by myself, and numerous members of other teams. If I hadn't seen this with my own eyes, I would not believe it myself.

Fact: After the arm snapped off, 48 stopped playing defense on 1114, making it seem like they knew what had happened

Fact: Multiple Team 48 members told members of 1114 to "look out, we're coming after you" prior to the matchup. Normally we would just assume that meant they were going to defend us. In the context of the match, my feelings are now different.

Fact: Team 48 was booed by a large section of the Curie stands (1114 was not part of this group) when they were announced for their next match. I have never seen this at FIRST event before, and I think it says a lot about how upset people were about this incident.

Fact: 48 pinned 1114 for 34 seconds, without backing up by 3 feet for 3 seconds.

Fact: The head referee was not aware of the 3 feet for 3 seconds rule. Even though this was discussed at the driver's meeting. She actually had to look it up at the scorer's table.

Fact: The head referee said "how do I know your arm was any good", to our Coach and Driver

Those are the facts about many of the situations that have been disputed.

I don't want the ugly incident of this match to take away from the great play of Teams 67 and 1732. Both teams had amazing robots, and displayed a huge amount of class. Members of both teams actually apologized to us about the actions of team 48. This impressed me, and helped me remember why I do FIRST. Then again, I should have expected nothing less from a classy organization like the HOT team.

I'd like to personally thank every team and individual who came to us to express their concern and sympathies about the incident. Having the support of all of you helped our team's emotional psyche.

Po-ser

16-04-2007, 18:15

I was watching the Curie matches. I think that it's horrible what happened to 1114. My team built a similar robot (well, similar in the sense that we tried to integrate ramps and an arm). To save weight and ramp space we made a "clock arm". Here's my story and my perspective on this:

http://rassi.ath.cx/stuypulse/view_photo.php?full=1&set_albumName=Week-1&id=Tom10

We had a tower on our chassis and a light aluminum tube cantilevered out on a single shaft. Now, we thought this was the coolest thing ever. It ramped, it picked up tubes, it scored... but we got to our first regional at Trenton and two things happened: 1. we had a practice match against a robot with no arm which was purely defensive and they pushed us into the rack and continued pushing even when it was clear that our arm was entangled. 2. when we got our match lists we realized that due to the algorithm, we were going to face that same team every single match. When we talked to them about being aggressive, they told us that their only strategy was defense. And it's true. What could they do but block and push? You can't do it perfectly your first match, and so they continued playing D on us, but improved match after match, keeping away from illegal moves.

So here's my analysis: you can't blame defense bots. That was a viable strategy this year for those that couldn't design in an arm. There's clearly a reason that bumpers have been written into the guidelines. After our arm snapped off and we disassembled it, all we could do during matches was play defense ourselves, and if anyone's ever driven, you know how hard it can be to push someone out of the way but not too hard. Sometimes you can't back out, sometimes you're stuck. Sometimes it's true, you get caught up in the moment--especially when the heat is on like it is at the championship. Can you imagine the pressure to look good?

The bottom line is: nobody comes to a regional intending to completely wreck someone else's six weeks of hard work. Nobody. Whatever the refs say is up to them, and being sore about it now is useless. 48 had a strategy and did what they had to do. They seem to have felt really bad about it and still do. 1114 worked really hard, but you know what? Everybody knows how great their robot is, and they'll get plenty more shots at Einstein in the future. It appears to be bad luck to me, for both teams, but it's not the end of the world and I don't think it's worth hating anyone for.

Sagar Vyas

16-04-2007, 18:23

I can confirm Karthik's facts as I was 5.5ft away from the field.

This thread should be moved to the Moderated section...

waialua359

16-04-2007, 18:27

the rules in pretty much ALL the regionals that I saw and been too, had LAXED refereeing. Our arm broke in the finals in the NJ regional while it was clearly stuck in the rack and we received constant ramming also while in that predicament.
It was the nature of the game and how the regionals unfolded, EVEN THOUGH, the rules at the beginning of January stated, you cant do that and you may be disqualified.
Im just saying, we are not going to complain about it anymore and it is the nature of what happened in some tough hard fought competition.
What a shame, but it just happened.

Travis Hoffman

16-04-2007, 18:31

I think this just might be the saddest day of my life since I joined FIRST.

Karthik, I'm not going to respond to anything stated above, as no one would believe me anyway.

Everyone, we have all made regrettable mistakes since last Saturday, on both 48 and 1114, and perhaps beyond, and I hope one day we can all look back at this, still as friends, and wonder how we all allowed ourselves to get to this point.

I'm sorry for not being perfect.

[Thread redirect]
Perhaps for the sake of progress, for now we could focus on discussing the execution of the match administration by the referees and the subsequent conversations between them and all upset parties? It seems some things were said/done that really hurt the feelings of people when it really wasn't necessary. I really do not like picking on these volunteers, who are under a great deal of pressure (and it seems NO ONE wants to ever believe me when I say that), but it seems like there was enough inconsistency in applying the rules from field to field to warrant further discussion regarding what went down in the Curie elims. Hopefully, this will help 1114 get some of the answers they deserve to hear. I will save further Team 48-centric comments for when I feel it is more appropriate...i.e. any time that isn't right now, once I've examined the events in more detail. There are just too many unknowns for me to make a statement one way or the other.
[/Thread redirect]

xzvrw2

16-04-2007, 18:47

ok i saywe getoffof that topic of what happened between 48 and 1114 and geton the topic of why the tube wasnt counted.

Lisa Perez

16-04-2007, 18:57

The fact of the matter is that no one is perfect, so none of us should be playing the blame game in here. Everyone makes mistakes, and everyone, if they have the will to, learns from those mistakes.

I understand why people are upset. And they have every single right to be upset. But really, at the end of the day, it's just a competition. There's a lot more to take away from FIRST than the wins.

cire

16-04-2007, 19:12

This is a unhappy situation for everyone involved. Most people here havnt broken another teams robot by playing defense on them, but let me tell you it is one of the worst feelings you can get in FIRST.

Last year at GLR I was our teams driver for a mostly defensive robot. Our shooter shot too far and we werent allowed to use it, so we played defense instead. We made it to the quater finals and faced team 1114, 1503? and another good bot. The first round I broke both 1114 and 1503's tank treads off their robots by pushing them sideways. I didnt mean to and I didnt think it would happen, and I definitly felt bad afterwards. I figured they blamed me for doing it on purpose and that I wasnt being GP. I wish i said sorry afterwards but I didnt because it was too hectic, (I am sorry 1114 and 1503).

But anyways, My point is that I feel just as sorry for the driver of team 48 as I do for team 1114.

MWTrek

16-04-2007, 19:20

I think FIRST needs a better communication line between the refs and the drive teams. Lets face it it must be extremely embarassing to have to recall a prior ruling and it doesn't happen often. Maybe the head ref could have a very quick chat with one member of each team before the next round starts and before the results are posted. This would allow each side to quickly point out any questions they may have had durring a match and clear every things up.

I know at UTC a procedure was layed out to speak with the head ref, however the one time that our team wanted to speak with him, we followed the procedure and they started the next match without talking to us. Communication on the field is key.

Dan Petrovic

16-04-2007, 19:35

On the part of the ring that 1114's arm was attached to:

Judging from the webcast video, it looks like the ring's weight isn't being supported by the leg itself. It seems that it's being supported by the plate on the end of the leg.

Just an answer for those people who believe the ring should be scored.

AdamHeard

16-04-2007, 19:52

[COLOR=black]Fact: Members of Team 48's driveteam, led by the Drive Coach, celebrated when 1114's arm snapped off. This was witnessed by myself, and numerous members of other teams. If I hadn't seen this with my own eyes, I would not believe it myself.

I saw this too (I was watching curie elims to support 330) and wasn't sure as to why they were chelebrating...

I am sure they were celebrating, but I can't for sure say that they were cheering because they broke 1114.

CJV648

16-04-2007, 20:08

I am not sure what to think about this incident yet. If the observations about pre-meditation and celebration in post #36 are accurate, disciplinary action of some sort vs team 48 seems to be in order. At what point, if any, did Team 48 apologize for "accidently" breaking 1114's arm? I haven't seen anything about this

Jay Trzaskos

16-04-2007, 20:18

The first round I broke both 1114 and 1503's tank treads off their robots by pushing them sideways. I didnt mean to and I didnt think it would happen, and I definitly felt bad afterwards. I figured they blamed me for doing it on purpose and that I wasnt being GP.

I'm positive this aspect of 1114's 2006 robot has been previously discussed (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=468732&postcount=16) on CD and I even witnessed teams talking about purposefully trying to break their treads at GTR last season in order to shut Simbotics down. This is in no way the topic of the discussion but It will help me illustrate a point later on, I promise.

But I was also standing on the field during Curie Semifinal 1 – 3. I was actually standing behind 48’s driver station during the entire match and would just like to point out that I clearly saw 1114’s arm snap. I also held what was left of the joint that was connected to their robot later that afternoon. It was not a weak joint by any stretch of the imagination. I wouldn’t expect anything less than amazing design, engineering, and fabrication from the crew from team 1114.

But back to what I clearly saw on the field and from team 48’s drive team. After witnessing the arm being snapped from 1114’s tower, I saw team 48’s drive coach with a very large grin on his face and do some sort of hand motion that closely resembled a fist pump behind the wall. I was too surprised at his reaction to look at his drive teams. When the match ended I saw the same man do multiple energetic fist pumps while hunched over slightly and screaming exuberantly. I also witnessed him chuckle as team 1114’s drive team and coach went to try and get an understanding of the Referee’s calling. I admit that I do not believe that 1114’s coach should have approached the Head Ref in this situation, but I can definitely understand his disbelief and anger at their decision.

In my mind and in my opinion this whole situation was unsettling. After the match when I was talking to Karthik with other people down on the floor, he stated, “I like VEX better.” Not because 1114’s FVC team won the FVC World Championship for the second year in a row (Congratulations), but because you would never see such disgraceful actions being shown by anyone that is part of that program. He likes it because, “people are playing the game to score, no intentional destructiveness.” I have mentored FVC for one year, FLL for two, and participated in FRC for six. I can tell you I have never seen anything quite like this before in ANY on of those programs and I hope I never see anything close to it again.

I can understand that teams want to shut down powerhouse teams like Simbotics, WildStang, *ThunderChickens, and Beatty. Whether it me keeping them from hanging (2004), capping (2005), Shooting (2006), or capping (2007). But I lose respect for any team that tries to purposefully hurt their opponents. I know that during my time as a member of 229, and many other teams also do this, I make sure that any damage we may inflict on ANY other team is not too extensive. I also offer the assistance of any member of our team to help fix any damage we may have unintentionally inflicted on any other team. Great team’s do not always have to win, and may lose** because they understand the values of FIRST and strive to meet them. Those teams are the ones I have the highest respect for.

* 237’s tip of 217 in their last qualification match of the day the Friday of Championships comes to mind, but that is for another thread entirely.
** Last year on Einstein when the eventual Championship Finalists used their time out so that the finals would be fair and even. I am positive that that alliance would have won if they had not understood and followed the values that FIRST is designed to instill in individuals.

Conor Ryan

16-04-2007, 20:33

The issues with this match seem to revolve around 1114's arm falling off as a result of 48's crazy defense. My instinct tells me that this was definetly excessive ramming, and that the refs that made the call started recounting every single time 1114 found a way to move a little bit (less than 3 seconds). By that logic it was ok, but it looks like 48 held contact continuously which i personally feel is grounds for excessive ramming. The penalty could of been much larger here.

The second part here, when 1114's arm was still hanging on to the tube on the rack, I'd rule as a scored ringer, because when parts (particularly those pesky flag holders) fall off robots and they get up ramps, the robot counts as being on the ramp despite the flag holder left on the carpet somewhere. I'd say 1114 didn't intentionally leave their arm on the rack so the tube should of counted.

But the ruling stands, 1732, 67, 48 win over 1114, 1523, 469, 30-10

Travis Hoffman

16-04-2007, 20:43

At what point, if any, did Team 48 apologize for "accidently" breaking 1114's arm? I haven't seen anything about this

At the request of Karthik himself, I went behind the curtain and talked to whomever was in their pit at the time. I was visibly upset over watching and hearing the arm break, and up til that point, I was not sure how to proceed. I was glad Karthik provided me the opportunity to approach his team. When I arrived at their pit area, it was at this point I apologized for what had happened. Shortly after that, I was gently asked by 1114's field coach to leave their pit. It was obvious he was distraught over the entire situation. Several separate attempts from our various team members to approach the team with regrets were met with uninviting stares or rebukes, including at the team wrap party, so we all thought it best to leave them alone the rest of the night.....and beyond.

Vogel648

16-04-2007, 20:46

Was the arm being supported by the arm which was supported by the spider leg? If it is so, then it is correct that it should not count imho, because it is being supported by a field element other than the spider leg.*

Also, we had something somewhat similar, if not as agregious, happened to us in our first Qualifying Match at Midwest. Team 858 pushed us into the arm and we started going up on 2 wheels then they kept pushing and we ended up on our backs. It was not penalized then either. It seems to me both of these are consistant, though I think both of them should have been penalties.

* Note I do not know this is the case, pure speculation.

Dan Petrovic

16-04-2007, 20:52

The second part here, when 1114's arm was still hanging on to the tube on the rack, I'd rule as a scored ringer, because when parts (particularly those pesky flag holders) fall off robots and they get up ramps, the robot counts as being on the ramp despite the flag holder left on the carpet somewhere. I'd say 1114 didn't intentionally leave their arm on the rack so the tube should of counted.

But the ruling stands, 1732, 67, 48 win over 1114, 1523, 469, 30-10

You might have missed my earlier post that stated that the weight of the tube was not supported by the leg like it was stated in the rules and even pointed out at Kickoff. It was supported by the stinger and the plate on the end of the leg, thus not legally scored.

so we all thought it best to leave them alone the rest of the night.....and beyond.

I'd hate to see a relationship between two teams be ruined because of one instance. If a team wants to win, that's fine. You get one chance to win. You can fix an arm anytime.

That's just how I feel...

Gertlex

16-04-2007, 20:55

Sure this post might just be viewed as saving face, but whatever.

I'm positive this aspect of 1114's 2006 robot has been previously discussed (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=468732&postcount=16) on CD and I even witnessed teams talking about purposefully trying to break their treads at GTR last season in order to shut Simbotics down. This is in no way the topic of the discussion but It will help me illustrate a point later on, I promise.

That is of course, my comment you link to. I'll link the misperception of my intent in that post primarily to a misuse of the :cool: smiley.

My real meaning, I believe, was trying to state how I felt as I watched the disabling of those two of the triplets. It was definitely more of a "holy... did we just do that?!?!" than anything whatsoever like "come-on driver, ram their robots over and over." I didn't even know this was a weakness of the triplets until that match.

I will also state that I was indeed not a fan of seeing identical robots at the regionals. That was probably the biggest factor in any hostility in my post.

None of this is the subject of the thread, so if you feel a need to argue with me for whatever (probably stupid) reason, use PMs.

xzvrw2

16-04-2007, 21:03

Vikesrock

16-04-2007, 21:07

if you watch the video until the end, you will notice, that if there were 3 more seconds given on the field, we wouldn't be talking about this, instead we would be talking about how great of a team 1114 is, facing all that adversity and still able to lift MARS up.

How close they came was almost amazing, it just goes to show HOW GREAT 1114 really was.

also I wanted to know this, im trying to figure this out, but i couldn't find it anywhere, if that ringer that wasn't scored, if that counted, what would have been the final score, that also goes for the 469 descored ringer.

TIA
Neither the 1114 ringer, nor the 469 ringer would have changed the outcome on their own. If both had been scored it would have created a row of 6 for Blue for a final score of 64-30.

I was not at the Championships, so my comments will be contained to what can be found in the webcast footage.

From the webcast footage, their is not enough coverage of 1114's arm being removed to make any type of judgment on whether it was intentional or not.

The descoring of the ringer by 469 also cannot be seen clearly. When the camera cuts away 469 is still in possession of the tube and when it comes back the tube is being taken off the rack. It is not entirely clear, but it does look like the tube was released at some point and is being taken off from a different angle. I cannot be certain if the tube was fully clear of the 469 mechanism to qualify as a score, but judging by what I can see combined with accounts in this thread that do not appear to have been disputed, this ringer should have counted.

The 1114 ringer definitely looks to be supported by the stinger initially. The point that is not caught on the webcast is the final position of the ringer after being jostled by 469. You can see 469 hit the ringer as they descore their own, but you cannot see if this causes it to clear the stinger or not.

Steve W

16-04-2007, 21:09

Thank you for keeping this civil.

That said I would like to comment on the "scored ringer". Myself and another FIRSTer watched both the soap108 video and the Google video. After playing over and over for more than 30 minutes I have come to the conclusion that neither video gives 100% proof of 1114's arm and ringer either being on the 8 leg or off. There is also no video evidence for the de-scored ringer on leg 7. If there are other videos the have conclusive proof, please post a link.

MasterChief1732

16-04-2007, 21:14

For those of you who are curious, and I know many of you are, here's a link to footage of Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, in which 1114, 469 and 1523 are eliminated.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8214223692796016767

Notice that 1114 is pinned for about 30 seconds, then driven into (hard) while their arm is tangled in the rack by team 48. Of course, the arm snaps in half, which is to be expected from what seems to me to be an intentional decision to do just that.

Note that there was a ten point penalty in this match for pinning, and no penalty at all for anything else.

If you watch the robots carefully, 1114 was never pinned against the rack for 30 seconds. Team 48 backed off every once in a while and towards the end 1114 was sideways against the rack and could have driven away. It is unfortunate that thier arm came off and there was a scoring problem, but what happened cannot be changed.

Just somthing i saw: I noticed that after the match a student from team 1114 was going confront team 48 in an aggressive manner. The student was restrained by what looked like a bystander or another member of 1114. The result of this match should not end in ill feelings towards other teams since we all know this is just a game and there is always next year.

Karthik

16-04-2007, 21:38

If you watch the robots carefully, 1114 was never pinned against the rack for 30 seconds. Team 48 backed off every once in a while and towards the end 1114 was sideways against the rack and could have driven away.

Team 48 never backed off by 3 feet for 3 seconds, as specified in the rule. As such, the count should not have been broken. Unfortunately, the count did no begin for at least 15 seconds, and was stopped after a short backup.

I am not sure what to think about this incident yet. If the observations about pre-meditation and celebration in post #36 are accurate, disciplinary action of some sort vs team 48 seems to be in order. At what point, if any, did Team 48 apologize for "accidently" breaking 1114's arm? I haven't seen anything about this

A few members apologized, but none took responsibility for the incident. A few suggested that we "build a tougher arm next year."

The incident is over and done with, and by no means are we expecting or looking for any sort of formal apology.

rourke

16-04-2007, 21:46

Sadly, I concur with Karthik’s fact statements, having witnessed the match at field-side, then later watching the videos, and all-the-while feeling uncomfortable with Team 48’s pre-championship claims on defensive manoeuvres – particularly using 1114 as an example.

However, what is done is done. FIRST is a microcosm of the real world. And this is just another example of what happens in the real world. Every day we read about things that don’t seem fair. Every day we see companies and governments that take action or make decisions that unfairly impact others – whether it is trade practices, employment equity, currency manipulation, or judgement errors.

In great companies, leaders take accountability for the actions of their team. In similar situations, leaders resign from key posts as a sign that they accept responsibility. I respectfully request that the leadership of Team 48 assess the role of the coach to determine if it is appropriate for him to continue in his role.

- Steve

MasterChief1732

16-04-2007, 21:48

I dont know what the specific rule is but you will notice that each time 48 backed up from the rack 1114 went with them. Therefore its just like two robots pushing eachother in the middle of the field. The timing for each pin was more like 7-8 seconds and that means that they did not need to move back three feet for three seconds, its only when its for 10 seconds. This could be due to certain refs. Example: when a robot gets pinned for 5 seconds and the robot doing the pinning backs away the refs usually stop the count and begin a new one if they pin them again.

Alexa Stott

16-04-2007, 21:55

Nick 1523

16-04-2007, 21:56

First of all i was actually there on the field and saw the whole match. What actually happened was (and it's kinda hard to see on the recording but) we (1523) were supposed to play defense while the our partners scored on the rack. While 1114 was being pinned up against the rack their coach was yelling the count for pinning and he got to 10 before they let up and when they backed away it was not for 3 seconds which as i believe is the required amount. As a result of this pinning, backing off and pinning again 1114's arm got wedged up in between the tube and spider leg and was snapped at the joint. 1114 then backed up and broke the wire connections which were the only things left holding the arm on. Now that I look back on it, they probably should have stayed put so as to not get a penalty for "littering the field" but that wouldn't have changed the outcome anyway. There were definitely some bad calls also including the removed keeper which was obviously passed the stinger (or at least it looked that way from behind the driver's station). Over all I'm happy we did as good as we did and I don't hold any grudges or anything... Well that's pretty much what happened and even though we tried to protest it the judge said that it was "not excessive roughness" and the rest is history.

Ian Mackenzie

16-04-2007, 21:56

If you watch the robots carefully, 1114 was never pinned against the rack for 30 seconds. Team 48 backed off every once in a while and towards the end 1114 was sideways against the rack and could have driven away. It is unfortunate that thier arm came off and there was a scoring problem, but what happened cannot be changed.

By the original wording of the rules, you are (partially) correct; any small amount of backing off before the 10-second mark ended the count. (I've called it that way myself, however much I didn't like it.) However, at the drivers' meeting on Thursday, it was stated that the pinning count would not stop until the pinning robot had backed off a full 3 feet for a full 3 seconds, which I'm quite sure was not the case. Also, the orientation of the robot is immaterial; pinning a robot sideways is still pinning, which is defined as "inhibit the movement of another ROBOT while in contact with a field element or border".

The result of this match should not end in ill feelings towards other teams since we all know this is just a game and there is always next year.

"It's just a game" is not a catch-all excuse for inappropriate (and here I am wording myself [I]very carefully) behaviour. And while we will most certainly be back in full force next year, that's no reason that we should be denied a fair chance at the big prize (well, second biggest prize) this year.

shamuwong

16-04-2007, 21:57

As a former driver myself, I can understand how 48's drivers continued to plow into 1114 until the arm broke off. The rack is rather hard to see through, especially with the ringers that were put on. I will not agree or disagree with any of Karthik's points, as I did not witness some of them myself. I was, however, standing right by the field, as part of the pit crew.

The greatest disappointment to me, however, was the incosistent or lack of refereeing on the Curie field. The 10 point penalty for aggressive play by 48 was only called after many complaints to the head referee, who blamed 1114's arm breaking on "poor design". And in the middle of our talking with the head referee, she left in order to ref the next match, effectively making any chance of a replay or change in the outcome impossible.

Say what you want about referees. Sure, they're volunteers. They can make mistakes. But every team that goes to nationals pays several thousand dollars on the robot itself, transportation, and entry fees, and countless hours of work and practice to get to Atlanta. To have it all squandered because of volunteers who don't know the rules and make inconsistent calls is absolutely ridiculous. I can appreciate their volunteering and all, but that doesn't make our complaints invalid. And then, to have the audacity of blaming the design of a robot in order to cover up for the fact that the head ref wasn't doing her job? I was stunned.

I have witnessed this too many times in Atlanta. In 2005, one of the volunteers working the autoloader stared at the field while one of our alliance partners waited for 20 seconds for them to load it. We were told to deal with it. In 2006, all three of the opposing alliance robots crossed the line to play defense, and no call was made. And now, this year, ringers weren't counted and destruction of robots was dealt with by a slap on the wrist, only after several complaints. It's no longer fun. It's just disappointing.

KTorak

16-04-2007, 22:03

Disclaimer: I was not at the event, I only saw video of the said action and I am going solely based off the rules. ALSO, I cannot tell who was on which side of the field. If 48 was performing defense on the opposing alliances side of the field, seeing and/or maneuvering may have been very difficult through the rack and with the intense game play.

First, as of approx. 1:09 on the google video here (http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8214223692796016767), 1114 appears to be attempting to hang a game piece.

My first Rule to point out is G39, which states:

<G39> Pinning - While on the carpeted field surface, a ROBOT cannot pin (inhibit the movement of another ROBOT while in contact with a field element or border) for more than 10 seconds. If a ROBOT has been pinned for 10 seconds, the TEAM with the pinning ROBOT will be told by a referee to release the pinned ROBOT and back away approximately 3 feet for a minimum of 3 seconds. Once the pinning ROBOT has backed off by at least 3 feet for 3
seconds, it may again attempt to pin its opponent, and if successful, the 10 second countwill start over. If a referee determines that this rule has been violated, a 10-point penalty will be assessed for each violation. Note that a ROBOT attempting to HANG a GAME PIECE on the RACK will be immune from a "pinning" violation as long as it is clear that the ROBOT is continuing to attempt to HANG the GAME PIECE.

From G39, we can conclude that as it appears, 1114 was attempting to score a game piece and therefore, immune from the pinning rule. IF 1114 would have dropped the game piece and stopped attempting to score, they would have been subject to the normal 10 second pinning rule.

Also, let me point out a another rule. Rule G35 states:

<G35> Intentional ROBOT - ROBOT interaction - Strategies aimed solely at the destruction, damage, tipping over, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not in the spirit of the FIRST Robotics Competition and are not allowed. In all cases involving robot-to-robot contact, the head referee may assess a 10-point penalty and/or the ROBOT may be disqualified. However, Rack 'n' Roll is a highly interactive game, and some appropriate contact is allowed
under the following guidelines:  Any contact within the BUMPER ZONE is generally acceptable, with the exception of high speed, long distance ramming. If TEAMS choose not to use bumpers, and their ROBOT contacts another ROBOT such that simultaneous contact occurs both in and out of the BUMPER ZONE, then this contact is considered within the BUMPER ZONE.

While we do not know 48's intentions, the contact was in the bumper zone AND was not ramming, therfore the contact was legal. However, if they clearly demonstrated that their strategy was to disable 1114 (such as high speed ramming and contact OUTSIDE the bumper zone), they would have at least a 10 point penalty assessed, and possibly a DQ.

To prevent a conversation style post, i'm gonna edit this one.

Someone may beat me to this post, but you've misinterpreted the rule here. It means that if 1114 was trying to place a ringer, it could not be called for pinning 48 in the course of that action. Not the other way around.

Is there any FIRST clarification on this rule? From what I have seen, the rule has seemed to apply to a robot pinning a robot this is attempting to score. Not a robot that is attempting to score pinning a defensive robot.

rourke

16-04-2007, 22:07

From G39, we can conclude that as it appears, 1114 was attempting to score a game piece and therefore, immune from the pinning rule.

Someone may beat me to this post, but you've misinterpreted the rule here. It means that if 1114 was trying to place a ringer, it could not be called for pinning 48 in the course of that action. Not the other way around. 48 was clearly not trying to score a ringer at the time.

Travis Hoffman

16-04-2007, 22:10

If you watch the robots carefully, 1114 was never pinned against the rack for 30 seconds. Team 48 backed off every once in a while....

I agree with this, and the video shows it. I think what Conor said earlier is accurate though - both the refs and our drive team failed to interpret the pinning rule correctly. Per what he told me, the coach was going off the counts of the ref, who incorrectly timed the activity and threw no flags. The count should reset after 3 seconds of backing off, but the ref reset it prematurely. I would say that each pin was typically well short of 10 seconds in length, but the cumulative effect of all the pinning intervals was well in excess of the acceptable length of time. But none of the drive team was aware of that while the match was being played.

Given the rules, I feel the pinning penalty that was ultimately applied was more than justified. Some will tell you I said that much more than that was expected, and they would be correct.

Jay and others, thank you for your observations, but I'd ask that you'd be a lot more patient before assigning malicious intent to anyone - especially if you are assigning it in general to an entire FIRST team. Please consider the overall audience you are speaking to when making these claims. If I were an outsider browsing these forums, I'd ask why the heck I'd want to get involved with this crazy program if this were the first thing I read about.

Vogel648

16-04-2007, 22:11

MasterChief1732

16-04-2007, 22:12

By the original wording of the rules, you are (partially) correct; any small amount of backing off before the 10-second mark ended the count. (I've called it that way myself, however much I didn't like it.) However, at the drivers' meeting on Thursday, it was stated that the pinning count would not stop until the pinning robot had backed off a full 3 feet for a full 3 seconds, which I'm quite sure was not the case. Also, the orientation of the robot is immaterial; pinning a robot sideways is still pinning, which is defined as "inhibit[ing] the movement of another ROBOT while in contact with a field element or border".

Even though they did not back up for the required amout of time 1114 moved with 48's robot and during that amount of time there was free movement of both robots, therefore the count ended after each backup of team 48. If 1114 stayed where they were the case would be different, but since they moved with 48 away from the rack I think they had the freedom of movement.

Travis Hoffman

16-04-2007, 22:12

Someone may beat me to this post, but you've misinterpreted the rule here. It means that if 1114 was trying to place a ringer, it could not be called for pinning 48 in the course of that action. Not the other way around. 48 was clearly not trying to score a ringer at the time.

Steve is 100% correct. If we were ever between the rack and 1114 as they were trying to score, they could pin us there until doomsday if they wanted to.

waialua359

16-04-2007, 22:13

as emotions settle down, lets remember why we do this?? A great learning opportunity for schools, communities and most of all, the students.
There were a lot of other issues that teams can complain about, like scheduling of matches. Why offer a rookie all star award or highest seeding when many of them got a "free" ride with veteran teams? Why is it that I can never be partners with the teams right next to us in the pit? Shouldn't it be purely random? I can speak from an experience where a robot that couldn't do anything really can move its way up to a highly competitive regional as a #2 seed???
The design of the game where all the robots fought to get to one area in the middle to score lent itself to this situation with defense. Perhaps, like Dave Lavery mentioned to us about the 2005 tetra game, we need to have more different areas of scoring and loading locations than robots to help prevent a clog of robots fighting for scoring/positioning so that this sort of thing cant happen. That was their intent that year in creating an offensive, scoring game.

I know that this wont make the emotions change, but Im sure many have expressed their support in saying that it was an unfortunate accident and no one purposely wished anyone harm, including our team.

Vogel648

16-04-2007, 22:16

Steve W

16-04-2007, 22:17

Please refrain from placing blame. Your grandmothers are watching ( I am almost that old). Facts only please or I will commence shutdown sequence.

BRosser314

16-04-2007, 22:17

Ive had some bad experiences with FIRST and wrong decisions or wrong calls, but i feel that Curie field was really possesed, not only in out match, but as Freenchie said even in the finals with Hot and ELITE

Karthik

16-04-2007, 22:19

It was a design flaw, not saying that the ramming was legal or anything like that, but it was a design flaw. Honestly, your arm should be able to hold up to the point where you tip over or be designed to fail in a way that is simple to repair(such as: shear pins).

Umm, okay.

The failure was a stress failure, the tube was actually stretched and torn apart, not twisted. Yes, an aluminum tube was ripped apart.

Also, during the push, the arm held up enough and ended up twisting the rack 40 degrees, before it actually failed. Yes, it twisted the 330 pound rack 40 degrees. I'm not saying our arm was bullet proof, but saying a 3 foot lever arm needs to withstand at least 200 pounds of pushing force is ridiculous.

As for simple to repair, we had our spare arm on the robot and ready to compete in 15 minutes, just in case the ruling was overturned.

waialua359

16-04-2007, 22:26

"The greatest disappointment to me, however, was the incosistent or lack of refereeing on the Curie field. "
I hate to tell you this, but its been like that for a WHOLE lot of regionals than just Curie at championship.
Ex. #1: robot in starting position must be behind white line but not necessarily the keeper being held. Referees in two regionals we attended enforced it exactly the opposite.
Ex. #2: Our arm broke in a NJ regionals finals match. Where was that 3 second rule?
Ex. #3: Ramps cannot be deployed outside the home zone and exceed the 72 x 72" rule. Why were penalties not consistently called?

The responsibility of understanding game rules MUST apply to referees also as much as they hold teams to it. Referees like in sports dictate behavior in matches being played. Simply stating a rule is not enough.

KTorak

16-04-2007, 22:26

Also, I believe rourke is correct, let us parse the wording.

Note that a ROBOT attempting to HANG a GAME PIECE on the RACK will be immune from a "pinning" violation as long as it is clear that the ROBOT is continuing to attempt to HANG the GAME PIECE.

Note that the Robot is attempting to hang a game peice. They are "immune" to a pinning violation. I assume that immune means that they will not be called on them. The robot being discribed is clearly the one scoring as the last one states that it is as long as it is continuing to attempt to hang.

I'm going to justify my belief by challenging the wording. When the GDC uses the term violation, it does not appear to mean penalty to me. Had they said the team hanging a game piece would be immune from the pinning penalty, i'd follow what is being said 100%. However, the choice of violation makes it seem like a team committing the pinning against them would be immune as well, or simply no action would be taken for robot-to-robot contact.

PatrickN

16-04-2007, 22:30

It was a design flaw, not saying that the ramming was legal or anything like that, but it was a design flaw. Honestly, your arm should be able to hold up to the point where you tip over or be designed to fail in a way that is simple to repair(such as: shear pins).

I dont see why it would be necessary to design an arm such that you're expecting it to fail at some point. I wasn't at the championships but I was at GTR and I saw the Waterloo regional and these guys basically have a giant "Kick me" sign taped to their robot... If the opposing alliance has at least one moving robot chances are there's going to be some defence played. Considering this has been going on for several years I'd expect these guys to make a design that they feel would stand up to a fair amount of rough play.

Karthik

16-04-2007, 22:32

I'm going to justify my belief by challenging the wording. When the GDC uses the term violation, it does not appear to mean penalty to me. Had they said the team hanging a game piece would be immune from the pinning penalty, i'd follow what is being said 100%. However, the choice of violation makes it seem like a team committing the pinning against them would be immune as well, or simply no action would be taken for robot-to-robot contact.

This was clarified in a team update, Q&A and the driver's meeting. It was made very clear that it was legal for a team to pin somone while scoring. It did not mean that a scoring team is allowed to be pinned. But I do agree, this was not very clear in the initial version of the rules.

Jonathan Norris

16-04-2007, 22:33

I'm going to justify my belief by challenging the wording. When the GDC uses the term violation, it does not appear to mean penalty to me. Had they said the team hanging a game piece would be immune from the pinning penalty, i'd follow what is being said 100%. However, the choice of violation makes it seem like a team committing the pinning against them would be immune as well, or simply no action would be taken for robot-to-robot contact.

This was discussed heavily at the beginning of the season, and i believe the GDC has addressed this wording many times in their forum. This rule is not up for questioning, sure it is not worded properly but the understanding by most (if not all) is that this applies to the offensive team attempting to score.

KTorak

16-04-2007, 22:37

Thanks for the clarification on that rule. I'm assuming the discussion occurred at the ATL drivers meeting, in which I was not in attendance because 1023 failed to qualify for the event. However, I am surprised that I missed that GDC update/ruling. Does anyone care to point me in the direction on where it was clarified? I can't believe I went off my own judgment all season without an issue (though 1023 RARELY plays defense).

David Brinza

16-04-2007, 22:37

There were definitely some bad calls also including the removed keeper which was obviously passed the stinger (or at least it looked that way from behind the driver's station).
The referee was completely correct in removing the keeper - it was partially supported by the foot, the leg and the 1114 gripper. This is clearly visible in the video clip in the first post of this thread. I was on the floor at Curie (right where Dean Kamen addressed the crowd), and my immediate reaction was that it didn't count.

Per the definitions in the game manual (7.1.2):
HANGING: a GAME PIECE is considered HANGING if its’ weight is fully supported by a SPIDER LEG and it has been released by the POSSESSING ROBOT. A GAME PIECE is not considered HANGING if it is supported by the SPIDER FOOT.

EnderWiggin

16-04-2007, 22:38

I'm on 1114's side on this one.. not only because of the fatality suffered by their robot, but because of how consistently poor the calls were by the refs this weekend.

You're not the only one, Joel, people seem to be having difficulty forming an objective opinion on this match and the reffing. The fact that their arm broke off has absolutely nothing to do with DQing 48 or not. 1114's arm got caught in the rack while they were trying to score with someone playing defense on them.
As a driver who has played some defense this year I would have done the exact same thing as 48's driver. If you're trying to defend against someone who is just about to score but hasn't yet placed and released the ringer you're a bad driver if you DON'T keep pushing

Fact: After the arm snapped off, 48 stopped playing defense on 1114, making it seem like they knew what had happened

Just because they knew what happened doesn't make them guilty! It may be hard to see from behind the rack and across the field, but sounds travels fine and I'm sure they hear the crack and saw the arm dangling from the ringer...
They stopped playing defense on 1114 because playing defense against a bot that can't score isn't much use. Or would it be more "graciously professional" to pretend like they still did?

Fact: Team 48 was booed by a large section of the Curie stands (1114 was not part of this group) when they were announced for their next match. I have never seen this at FIRST event before, and I think it says a lot about how upset people were about this incident.

Again, people feel so badly for 1114 because they're such a grade A+ team and would likely have been Curie champs (and then who knows what).
This section of the stands obviously failed to see things objectively here. 1114 = good guys; 48 = bad guys. right?

Fact: 48 pinned 1114 for 34 seconds, without backing up by 3 feet for 3 seconds.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8214223692796016767
Definitely not a fact. The pinning in question starts at 1:02 and ends at 1:10 (that's 8 seconds btw). And before you say that 48 didn't back up 3 feet for 3 seconds, that rule doesn't apply when you are pushing back and moving back the 3 feet WITH THEM. That only makes it easier/quicker for them to re-engage in a pushing match they're sure to win.
The pinning stopped at 1:10 and started again at 1:14 (that's 4 seconds btw) and they certainly moved back more than 3 feet. If 1114 wanted to get out of that situation they should have stayed put, turned to the side and booked it out of there in the 3+ seconds and 3+ feet they had available instead of chasing after them for god's sake!
(watch carefully the space in between 1114 and the RACK, not 48 and 1114.)

I'll say it again, put yourself in the place of team 48's driver. Would you have backed off just as they were about to score the ringer? I doubt it.

Vogel648

16-04-2007, 22:45

Honestly, looking at your boom at competition and even before then when scouting, I said that it looked kind of flimsy, with as far as I could tell only a couple of small pieces near the end. I'm not trying to say there was a major design flaw, but to me that arm should have had more pieces re-enforcing it, especially since they were just tubes an not re-enforced pieces like the extruded aluminum our team uses. Overall, even to pulling stress like you're talking about, the amount of material used could have been far greater, but was likely given up to save weight. This allowed your robot to be very versitile, but not as robust.

CJV648

16-04-2007, 22:46

What happened is the reason why we will only get one tiny drivetrain motor in next year's game.:(

Karthik

16-04-2007, 22:50

Just because they knew what happened doesn't make them guilty! It may be hard to see from behind the rack and across the field, but sounds travels fine and I'm sure they hear the crack and saw the arm dangling from the ringer...
They stopped playing defense on 1114 because playing defense against a bot that can't score isn't much use. Or would it be more "graciously professional" to pretend like they still did?

Carl,

Team 48 denies knowing that the arm snapped off, this is what I am disputing. I agree it doesn't make them guilty of showing intent, but it does show that the knew the arm broke off, that's all.

Again, people feel so badly for 1114 because they're such a grade A+ team and would likely have been Curie champs (and then who knows what). This section of the stands obviously failed to see things objectively here. 1114 = good guys; 48 = bad guys. right?

Team 1114 has never been a fan favourite at any event, you know that better than anyone. Considering in the past people have cheered when our robot has broken, including people from a team you know rather well. Neither of us can know why 48 was booed, my guess is that it was because people thought it was a dirty play. Also, I wouldn't say it was likely that we would have been Curie division champs. 330 (best robot in 2007, hands down), 910 and 1270 would have had a lot to say about that.

I'll say it again, put yourself in the place of team 48's driver. Would you have backed off just as they were about to score the ringer? I doubt it.

I most definitely would have backed off. I know you wouldn't have, but that's what makes us different.

Jeremiah Johnson

16-04-2007, 22:52

Wow... Look what can happen in the 6 hours I'm at work. This looks almost exactly like a repeat of a 2005 thread featuring a referreeing mistake in the semis at Midwest in which hearts were broken. I played a major part in that argument, putting blame on refs. I shouldn't have done that and I learned from it. Referees are only human and I agree that penalties should be assessed consistently.

I'm sorry to hear that 1114 and the rest of that alliance was put in this position. Karthik, I hope you and your team fix your arm and have it roaring to go at IRI. I hope to be there to cheer you all on.

Vogel648

16-04-2007, 22:54

Carl,

Team 48 denies knowing that the arm snapped off, this is what I am disputing. I agree it doesn't make them guilty of showing intent, but it does show that the knew the arm broke off, that's all.

I believe you are misrepresenting what he's saying, as far as I can tell what he's saying is he didn't realize that your arm was about to fail before it did. Of course I could be wrong, in which case I would apreciate you pointing me to the post in which it was said.

Thanks
-nrv.

Jonathan Norris

16-04-2007, 22:59

As a driver who has played some defense this year I would have done the exact same thing as 48's driver. If you're trying to defend against someone who is just about to score but hasn't yet placed and released the ringer you're a bad driver if you DON'T keep pushing

All right Carl you got a point here, but you gota look at the footage more. Take a look between 1:18 and 1:28 throughout this time 48 was pinning 1114. They were going full out and drove right through 1114 while their arm was clearly tangled in the rack. This 10 seconds proves to me that yes, 48 was pinning. Also seeing 48 drive through 1114 like that while they were obviously tangled in the rack for 5-6 seconds till the point where the arm broke is something I doubt you would do (or I would let you do as operator).

edit: looking at the footage i would extend that pinning back to 1:15...
There's a reason we don't build bully bots anymore :p

Steve W

16-04-2007, 23:01

I think the above statement is ungracious and I believe Karthik should withdraw it.

Carl stated he wouldn't have backed off, Karthik would have backed off so there is the difference. There is nothing ungracious about that statement.

BTW Carl and Karthik are friends.

PatrickN

16-04-2007, 23:03

The failure was a stress failure, the tube was actually stretched and torn apart, not twisted. Yes, an aluminum tube was ripped apart.

Aluminium... what is that a mere 450 MPa ultimate yield? The mystery of the technical awards shutout is solved...

Vogel648

16-04-2007, 23:03

From a third person prespective it seemed inflamatory to me as well. *shrug* I guess it's just a misunderstanding.

Steve W

16-04-2007, 23:03

What happened is the reason why we will only get one tiny drivetrain motor in next year's game.:(

A little humor is good. Why is he getting neg reps?

KTorak

16-04-2007, 23:08

Let's stop negative repping others, especially new members into the ground for their opinion just because you don't agree. Negative repping is for malicious posts, posts/topics in bad-taste, misleading information, or false information.

On the other hand, they are just dots.

But let's not let this get out of hand so it has to be closed and/or moderated. So with that, sit back, take a deep breath, and think about what you post before you post it so you don't regret saying something later because it was a spur of the moment strike against someone else.

scipio

16-04-2007, 23:16

Once again i would like to point out that every 48 backed off 1114, 1114 backed up w/ them therefor when 48 resumed defence, they were in violation of the rules...although 1114's arm braking off is unfortunate, sometimes that is just the result of of rough play in a very rough match...

Jay Shah

16-04-2007, 23:16

As for simple to repair, we had our spare arm on the robot and ready to compete in 15 minutes, just in case the ruling was overturned.

Ok, I know I'm a little off-topic here, but I want to recognize what Karthik said here. Read it, read it carefully.

I want to congradulate 1114's team for being such darn good designers! In my 5 years doing this I've seen my fair share of robot damage, some as major as a ripped arm, and I've never even thought that it could be repaired with such speed. (In addition to the fact that their arm moved the rack!) Just take a second, and think about what an insane feat of engineering that is!

(I'm not going to take an opinion here, not because I'm not supposed to, but because I think I'm rather emotional about both 1114 and 48. We lost to 48 in GTR after a lot of defense, in which our robot broke (I'm not blaming anyone). And 610 and 1114 have had a lot of history over the past 2 years, playing together, playing against each other. So I have lots of strong feelings on both sides, I don't want that to get in the way of an interpretation of this particular incident)

Just wanted to point out the awesome engineering/design work.

EnderWiggin

16-04-2007, 23:27

They were going full out and drove right through 1114 while their arm was clearly tangled in the rack. This 10 seconds proves to me that yes, 48 was pinning. Also seeing 48 drive through 1114 like that while they were obviously tangled in the rack for 5-6 seconds till the point where the arm broke is something I doubt you would do (or I would let you do as operator).

From a viewer you see 1114 as being tangled in the rack. As a driver and strategist I see them as trying to score, trying to complete a row that's going to lose the match for my alliance.

So what is pinning exactly? I see it as one team blocking a team against a solid structure as to prevent them from doing anything. Something swinging around and movable (especially something you are trying to score on) should hardly count. Remember in '06 when you were allowed to pin indefinitely on the ramp? The same mentality should still apply and I think that's how the refs were thinking.

The real problem here isn't robot design or play, it's the game itself. FIRST should have known better than to make game structures that extend at a perfect height to clothesline a robot or to snap an arm off. The enclosed space makes things even worse.

"Aim High" was designed with gameplay in mind, something they apparently forgot with Rack 'n Roll. I hope FIRST takes the same '06 approach next year.

Jonathan Norris

16-04-2007, 23:29

Ok let me pose a different situation with very similar circumstances, but hopefully less emotions involved. At GTR we faced 379, 48, and 1006 in the quarter finals, a very similar pushing match happened while we were trying to score on the rack. Luckily our arm did not allow for the type of movement (yay worm gears!) that 1114's did, and it did not seriously damage our arm (though it was banged up).

http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv/match.php?matchid=3061

The situation was that we were trying to score and you can see from about 1:18 to about 1:40 'pushing' against us while we were trying to score, Effectively pinning us. This is very similar to the situation that happened against 1114 on the Curie field. Should this have been called pinning, because that is the question that I have been arguing with people for the last couple hours over this situation.

I thought I would propose we discuss this question over a less emotional match (in no way am I mad or angry at 48 over our match against them, hey we won the match). I am just trying to maybe propose a situation where the situation is the same but the end result is not as ugly.

J Flex 188

16-04-2007, 23:30

Easy now everyone, remember what everyone else has been talking about the entire time about posting without emotion and being as objective as possible. Posts like this below that are poorly formed and don't quote any specific source other than the fact that they are "in violation of the rules" do not serve any purpose in this thread and only further increase the likelihood that more lines will be drawn in the sand without proper understanding of the situation, or at least as close as it can come. I will guarantee you that you cannot cite a source in the rules that states that a robot backing up when another robot is playing defence on them is in violation of anything.

Lastly, no amount of rough play justifies being a piece of machinery as significant and as large as an arm being torn off. If that were your robot, think about how you would feel.

Once again i would like to point out that every 48 backed off 1114, 1114 backed up w/ them therefor when 48 resumed defence, they were in violation of the rules...although 1114's arm braking off is unfortunate, sometimes that is just the result of of rough play in a very rough match...

Vogel648

16-04-2007, 23:32

There were a number of problems with aim high as well, including but not limited to, the overbalancing of autonomous modes, the fact that experienced teams that knew how to use the camera had a huge advantage in both regular and autonomous play, and various other thing. Overall I think the game this year was a solid one that would have real world aplications.

Kate00

16-04-2007, 23:37

Karthik:
Fact: After the arm snapped off, 48 stopped playing defense on 1114, making it seem like they knew what had happened

Carl:
Just because they knew what happened doesn't make them guilty! It may be hard to see from behind the rack and across the field, but sounds travels fine and I'm sure they hear the crack and saw the arm dangling from the ringer...
They stopped playing defense on 1114 because playing defense against a bot that can't score isn't much use. Or would it be more "graciously professional" to pretend like they still did?

Karthik:
Team 48 denies knowing that the arm snapped off, this is what I am disputing. I agree it doesn't make them guilty of showing intent, but it does show that the knew the arm broke off, that's all.

I believe you are misrepresenting what he's saying, as far as I can tell what he's saying is he didn't realize that your arm was about to fail before it did. Of course I could be wrong, in which case I would apreciate you pointing me to the post in which it was said.

Thanks
-nrv.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I think you're trying to say is Karthik is misinterpreting what Carl is saying, and what Carl is saying is that Carl didn't realize that 1114's arm was about to fail before it did?

Carl is not on 48, let alone their driveteam. I don't understand how you think he could not have realized their arm was going to break before it did. In the video, the arm clearly moves the rack, flexes, and then the aluminum tubing snaps. I don't understand how 48 could have failed to see the rack spinning, the spider legs pushed all to one side, and thought "oh, this is normal and fine." 48 then clearly pulls off after the snap, like they recognized what they did. I don't understand what the issue is. Please clarify.

Ian Mackenzie

16-04-2007, 23:37

So what is pinning exactly? I see it as one team blocking a team against a solid structure as to prevent them from doing anything. Something swinging around and movable (especially something you are trying to score on) should hardly count. Remember in '06 when you were allowed to pin indefinitely on the ramp? The same mentality should still apply and I think that's how the refs were thinking.

Back to the rule, pinning is "inhibit[ing] the movement of another ROBOT while in contact with a field element or border". It doesn't say it has to be something rigid; spider legs are certainly field elements. The reason that pinning was not called against the ramp last year was because the ramp was considered part of the floor, not a field element. That may not have been clear in the initial rules, but it was cleared up mid-year and I believe it was called consistently across regionals.

Rich Ross

17-04-2007, 00:03

this may be a small amount off topic, but as i have never seen said snapping of aluminum, i was wondering if 1114 has some pictures of the snapped arm. I would like to see what said breaking looks like.

I just hope that this all gets worked out for the best, although it seems less than possible at this point.

Tyler 783

17-04-2007, 00:05

Ok I don't normaly post, but I beleive this thread warrents a post. I'll state right now I am not taking sides, I'm actualy not going to say anything about what calls were made, or what people 'should have done'. I'm just going to try and put some things in perspective.

Ok for those of you who don't know me (or at least don't know me by name) I have been (for the past two years) the Lead Team Queuer of the the GTR and the Waterloo regional, so in this capacity I have had a chance to talk to pretty much every drive team of every team who has competed at those two regionals. I was also on my own teams' Drive team for 3 years, so I also know the exitement and adrenaline of the action on the feild.

Ok now to the two points that I wanted to talk about.

Firstly since I wasn't there and have only watched the match once I do not think it fair for me to make any claims as such. What I realy want to talk about is the excitment of the moment, I know from my years driving the robot that during the competition you are very very excited. Some things you do in this state you may regret latter on. Also that in this state you are more then likley to become excited when there is a sudden advantage you have gained. I know from personal experience from driving the robot that during matches I've become excited at times, that in hindsight I beleive I should not have for various reasons. I don't beleive that in times like these that most people (not all but most) could do things that wouldn't be in character. I beleive that the way that things are handeled after the situation are more important, and the feelings of regret are sometimes almost punishment enough.

Secondly everyone seems to be going on hard about the refing. You have to remember that there are only a limited number of referees watching any one given feild, and that all the referees are volunteers. I know personaly from volunteering that at everymoment I try my best to make sure everything happens the way it should be and try my best to do the job assigned for me. I am sure that it is the same for all of the other volunteers in FIRST. This being said what more would you want to have seen done?

Bharat Nain

17-04-2007, 00:13

Back to the rule, pinning is "inhibit[ing] the movement of another ROBOT while in contact with a field element or border". It doesn't say it has to be something rigid; spider legs are certainly field elements. The reason that pinning was not called against the ramp last year was because the ramp was considered part of the floor, not a field element. That may not have been clear in the initial rules, but it was cleared up mid-year and I believe it was called consistently across regionals.

Sometimes the referee's did not even know when a RINGER/KEEPER was SCORED. It is hard for them to make even complex calls like those. I am sorry for what happen to 1114. Hopefully FIRST will resolve their issues and make some changes next season.

AdamHeard

17-04-2007, 00:16

A few points I would like to make;

Do not argue what something "should" be, or what you would have done to win; The rules are the rules, and they are pretty literal in this sense.

Do not say that 1114 should have made their arm stronger. I am willing to bet money that 1114's arm is more robust than 90% of the other teams out there (the only one that is definitely more robust in my mind is 330, but that's because I have a lot of experience with them. I'm sure there are others as well).

The facts are that it looks pretty much like 48 tried to break 1114. I have a hard time believing this in FIRST, especially from a veteran and high caliber team, but I saw with my own eyes what happened. At first, I though I must be crazy; but when well respected members of the FIRST community (Karthik, Jay, etc...) claim to have seen the exact same thing, it is hard to think otherwise.

I would like to hear what the coach and drivers for 48 have to say about this.

They either were playing with the intent to break 1114, or were playing extremely rough with no regards to the consequences.

CJV648

17-04-2007, 00:31

Travis Hoffman

17-04-2007, 00:40

Lastly, no amount of rough play justifies being a piece of machinery as significant and as large as an arm being torn off.

The force and aggression 48 exerted was extremely great to cause the joint break and rack shift. I feel the rack movement is a combination of 1114's robust (yes, I said robust) design and a "greasier" rack that seemed increasingly easier to move as the regional weeks moved on. This is the action and accompanying sound that sickened me when I first saw it happen. After watching the video in more detail, however, 1114's action of backing up following the break did a substantial amount of the separating and final amputation. It appears once they realized their arm was broken, they did what was necessary to extract themselves from the ringer to go continue to be productive on the other side of the field. I would expect nothing less from such fierce competitors. I think the act of 1114 helping to sever their own arm is important to note, considering everyone is attaching the "vicious" appearance of the entire process solely to 48's robot.

Also, a few other observations having studied the video, purely from the DRIVER'S point of view.

The middle spider was almost full at the time this happened, so visibility was limited, especially for a kid who's really not that tall.
If you look, the difference in position between the "I have a ringer and I want to score on the middle spider" arm position and the "I'm being pushed into the middle spider by a defender" arm position isn't all that significant, and much of the arm is obscured by ringers already scored at the height of the middle spider level.
The announcer didn't indicate he was aware of the broken arm until 1114 started ripping away from the part still attached to the spider leg. His attention may have been diverted elsewhere for a few moments, but his vantagepoint was unquestionably better than our driver's. If he didn't notice this until later, is it out of the question to believe our driver couldn't tell the arm was broken?
Finally, I can never really tell if the blue ringer was ever officially scored per the rules. At the end, when 1114's arm was dangling off of it, the ringer was perched on top of the "stinger". Does this count as being scored? I really don't know - we aren't in the business of scoring ringers (save for an attempt to score a keeper in auton on Thursday).

David Brinza

17-04-2007, 01:02

People who have talked about the reffing have missed a subtle point about the use of red/yellow cards. IMHO the problem was not so much that 48 did not receive a red card in SF1-3, but that it and a couple of other teams had not received yellows for rough play earlier in qualifying that would have toned down the rough play the way good refs do in soccer. 48's qualifying rounds were rough enough that when I saw 48 get picked I was pretty sure robots would be broken in eliminations, though I didn't expect anything as dramatic as what happened. If the red/yellow card system is used again next year FIRST should encourage refs to use the yellow card a lot more often and prepare them to listen to the ensuing whining from coaches/players.
Anyone who has watched basketball games where the referees "let the players play" by not blowing the whistle on minor contact will attest that the level of aggressiveness will increase dramatically. In some cases, the games will get out of control as players retaliate for the previous "non-foul" contact. For the referees, once a potential foul is ignored, the next one is harder to call.

This sort of behavior isn't restricted to sports: the space shuttle disasters (Challenger and Columbia) had early warning signs (blow-by of solid booster o-rings and debris falling from the external tank). These anomalies were noted in the program, but were considered not quite bad enough to stop the launches. This effect wasn't fully appreciated until the disasters occurred. It's human nature to build tolerance to risky behavior until something catastrophic occurs. Only then do people see the trend and wonder why it wasn't caught earlier...

We build robots, but we control them with humans. Mistakes will happen.

Alan Anderson

17-04-2007, 08:07

FIRST Teams are asked to be more and more professional as the years come by, and yet the infrastructure itself remains very amateurish.

The relevant infrastructure here is composed of amateurs. They're volunteers. To provide a consistently professional infrastructure would require professionally-paid workers, professional-quality training, and ongoing professionally-supervised evaluations. I doubt increasing the fees paid by teams to cover these costs would go over well.

As FIRST grows, teams are increasingly demanding better service. Can't it instead be that the teams can increasingly provide what they want FIRST to have? With more teams and more involvement, there ought to be a correspondingly higher pool of enthusiastic and capable volunteers.

A challenge to those of you grumbling about the refereeing this year: Be a referee next year. If you don't take some responsibility for improving the situation, try not to be upset if it doesn't change to your liking.

Tom Bottiglieri

17-04-2007, 08:49

A challenge to those of you grumbling about the refereeing this year: Be a referee next year. If you don't take some responsibility for improving the situation, try not to be upset if it doesn't change to your liking.
I'd like to be a referee. Unfortunately, all of the events in my area aren't very fond of college folks having ref spots. Or maybe its just me.

65_Xero_Huskie

17-04-2007, 08:51

I was on Galileo's field when this happened and a mentor came over and said that 1114's arm was destroyed. I thought to myself that i was thinking this would happen this year. In GLR i remember thinking to myself that their arm is out in the open and could easily be damaged if they were to get played defense on. Our arm also got badly damaged in the Finals on Galileo, but thats no ones fault. My feelings on this is that things happen and there should be no hard feelings towards anyone next year. 48 is known for their defense and i would not want them to go easy on 1114 (especially because they can put up ringers like crazy).

xzvrw2

17-04-2007, 09:01

Ok I think we need get off of the topic of 48 breaking 1114s arm. I am not going to say what my opinion is on it, i think that it is not needed for this thread, and if you really want to know it pm me and i will tell you. But the main thing that should be addressed here is why the ringer was not scored. The ringer with 1114s completly broken off arm still attached to it. I would like to know why it was scored as it was. I dont know if it is in the rules that says that the arm, that is completly off of the robot, is still apart of it, but from what i hear, the arm is apart of the feild now and therefore apart of the ringer. meaning that the ringer should have been scored. i dont know if it would have made a difference in the match, but i think that someone needs to look in to it. i cant right now because i am ogoing to be having breakfast with my grandparents...we are having eggs bacon and toast...it should be yummy..im excited...haha

rick.oliver

17-04-2007, 09:15

For those of you who are curious, and I know many of you are, here's a link to footage of Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, in which 1114, 469 and 1523 are eliminated.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8214223692796016767

Notice that 1114 is pinned for about 30 seconds, then driven into (hard) while their arm is tangled in the rack by team 48. Of course, the arm snaps in half, which is to be expected from what seems to me to be an intentional decision to do just that.

Note that there was a ten point penalty in this match for pinning, and no penalty at all for anything else.

I can certainly understand the frustration and dissappointment. The video does not support your arguement. And, your assertion that Delphi Elite played with the intent to break 1114 is not consistent with my experience with Team 48 in both Pittsburgh and Cleveland. In Pittsburgh, we ran against them in a Qualifying Match and with them in the Elimination Rounds. In Cleveland, we ran with them in a Qualifying Match and against them in the Finals. In all cases they played defense hard and within the rules.

This is a game, and only a game. It is a wonderful opportunity to learn lessons that will help us grow and improve - in life. There are some great lessons here; find them and apply them.

MarsBOtkid

17-04-2007, 09:52

Alright ill give my two sense. I am the operator for 1523. AS the other team started pinning 1114 we were screaming 1 2 3 4 5 all the way until 13 or 14 of them pinning 1114. The arm did eventually snap and no penalty was given except one 10pt for pinning. At the beggining of the round in Auton i am almost positive more then 50% of the ringer was on the spyder leg. Yet the judge "elboed it off". Stuff happened that match that is in the past and it was a fun experience. Improvements can be made though.

Gary Dillard

17-04-2007, 10:06

Firstly since I wasn't there and have only watched the match once I do not think it fair for me to make any claims as such. What I realy want to talk about is the excitment of the moment, I know from my years driving the robot that during the competition you are very very excited. Some things you do in this state you may regret latter on. Also that in this state you are more then likley to become excited when there is a sudden advantage you have gained. I know from personal experience from driving the robot that during matches I've become excited at times, that in hindsight I beleive I should not have for various reasons. I don't beleive that in times like these that most people (not all but most) could do things that wouldn't be in character. I beleive that the way that things are handeled after the situation are more important, and the feelings of regret are sometimes almost punishment enough.

I fully agree with this observation - claiming a "fact" that another team wanted to damage your robot based on their subsequent celebration is inappropriate and incorrect.

At UCF regional we had our arm ripped off by another robot (Barry Bonzack's team). Ours was definitely not robust enough, but it was repaired in time for the next match. Although I didn't watch them, I would imagine that Barry's team was excited and probably cheered when it happened because it is pretty cool to see, even though our field team was probably sick about it at the time because of the time they had put into the robot. I started laughing when I saw it from the stands (although I didn't design the joint I designed the arm) because it made for great drama, but I then ran down to get repairs started. Barry and crew came up afterward to see what they could do, and they gave us pneumatic tubing we needed for the repair.

I've been in the same boat before. S.P.A.M has NEVER had a strategy aimed at damaging another robot, but it has happened due to the rigors of competition. Having a strong drive train means you play strong defense so it is bound to happen.

Don't read intentions into initial reactions.

Excessive force is a DQ. There was no DQ

Hmmmm..... I must have missed that one in the rule book. Can you point me toward it?

David Brinza

17-04-2007, 10:10

At the beggining of the round in Auton i am almost positive more then 50% of the ringer was on the spyder leg. Yet the judge "elboed it off".
In order to be HANGING, the ring must be fully supported by the spider leg, not by the spider foot and/or robot. The referee (not judge!) was 100% correct in removing the keeper. READ THE RULES!!!

MarsBOtkid

17-04-2007, 10:20

In order to be HANGING, the ring must be fully supported by the spider leg, not by the spider foot and/or robot. The referee (not judge!) was 100% correct in removing the keeper. READ THE RULES!!!

You dont need to get mad about it "READ THE RULES" trust me ive read them more then once. You were not in the position that all of us were in. We should of had a re-match yet we could not. Yet when 330 played in the finals and their arm broke off they got a re-match. That is what disapoints us most!!!

MarsBOtkid

17-04-2007, 10:21

Like i said overall the oposing alliance was an excellent alliance

Liz Smith

17-04-2007, 10:24

I'd like to be a referee. Unfortunately, all of the events in my area aren't very fond of college folks having ref spots. Or maybe its just me.

Well, I don't know exactly where you've been trying to referee, but I'm a Sophomore in college and I this year I refereed at 2 regionals (Pittsburgh and NYC) as well as at the Championship Event.

In my opinion, in response to people questioning the referees consistancy, the referees spent most of Thursday at the Championship discussing the rules and the minor details of the game. The head referees spent even longer discussing each and every rule. The referees in this competition are not oblivious to the controversies the come up within the game.

Now, on being informed of the rules. What you think may be inconsistancies with calls, may just be you just not knowing the rules of the game well enough. Besides the referee meeting, there was the drivers meeting at the championship, where the referees and the drivers discussed certain rules and how the calls were going to be made at the event. The drivers meeting answered all the questions that the drivers from the teams in all the divisions had. Unless you were at that entire drivers meeting, I don't think you have a fair say in how a play should have been called. I don't know what makes some of you think that you can trash the referees, maybe its because you think that unlike teams, they don't read CD.. but they do, and maybe you should be a little more careful about what you say about the referees.

Tom Line

17-04-2007, 10:46

While I wasn't involved - I did want to point something out. I watched that video - perhaps with a slightly different viewpoint than many people.

The referees went into the match had no special warning of where to watch. They had no advance notice that something major and very controversial might occur. As such, you and I are far, far more prepared to try to evaluate what happened. Especially since we have a very small section of the field to watch - we are watching a single robot for the whole match. That is the beauty of hindsight. We also have the wonderful ability of instant replay. How many of you simply watched that video once and drew your opinions from that? Because that ALL the referees had to go from - and worse, they were watching the whole field. Not 10 square feet of it.

So I watched it once. And only once. Here is what I saw.

1114 grabbed a ringer and then went to score while being defended. The other robot (48) was trying to push them around. At several points I, with my referee hat on, became concerned that the pinning was going on too long. In each instance, I saw 48 back away from 1114. Instead of turning, or any other type of maneuver, 1114 backed up with them. Were they off for three seconds? Hard to say, in my "only watched the video once" eye. I didn't have a stopwatch going. As I doubt the refs did. I DO know that 1114 was continually trying score.

But I DID see 48 back off - several times. Whether they did so for 1.5 seconds or 4.5 seconds is truly in the eye of the beholder. During the actual match, I'm sure 1114 was screaming they'd been pinned (their team member near the camera was screaming pin well before 10 seconds were up) while I'm sure team 48 was counting a little more slowly...1....2.....3.... I see several people saying 1114 was pinned the whole time. No they weren't. They continued contact with 48 when 48 backed off. That is not 48's fault, and does not constitute a continuing pin count.

It's the nature of competition. Team 1114's arm was broken. At the point where it was broken, 48 and 1114 were still moving forward. As such, it's very difficult for a ref to say they were pinned - you'd have to realise the entire situation of their arm being stuck. I know I had trouble seeing it. Did 48 know it was going to break as they pushed 1114? I sincerely, sincerely, doubt it. I see quite a few people here drawing judgements from their emotions rather than rationality.

I saw a hard fought match, which upon replay presented some questionable acts. In the heat of the moment, without replay or hindsite, and with the whole field to look at, I suspect I would have made the exact same decisions as the referees.

Daniel_LaFleur

17-04-2007, 11:07

A lot has been said about the refereeing here.

I'd like to say a few things because I do not believe this thread has been very fair to the refs.

Refereeing is a very difficult and thankless job. No matter what you call, there will be those that disagree with your call (sometimes vehemently). Referees are human, and sometimes miss a call or make a call in error, this is a fact of life and we (as players, people, and teams) have to accept those calls (just consider it another lesson learned from FIRST). In many of the calls, the referee has to make a judgement call as to the intent of the action (did they mean to break the arm? was that ram intentional? etc). This is especially difficult in the heat of competition. I truely believe that the referees do a great job in FIRST, and if they make the wrong call once in a while ... well, it just proves that they are human.

There will always be bad calls. There will always be different interpretations of the rules. There will always be the human factor. And I'll challange anyone who believes they can do a better job of refereeing to volunteer next year.

Bharat Nain

17-04-2007, 11:15

A lot has been said about the refereeing here.

I'd like to say a few things because I do not believe this thread has been very fair to the refs.

Then who should take responsibility of all the bad calls in a game? FIRST for not training them well-enough? GDC for creating the rules? I do agree the being a referee is a hard job and I am thankful to all those who volunteered for it. However, the game is the only fair chance for all teams at an event to compete. I can understand a few mistakes in a game but when they miss something obvious repeatedly and call it differently from regional-to-regional and division-to-division, I think someone has to take responsibility. To me being a referee is a huge responsibility and a huge honor. With great power comes great responsibility.

I usually do not like posting these things because CD doesnt take criticism too well. However, I hope next year is a better year.

xzvrw2

17-04-2007, 11:20

I have reffed before. it was at an offseason event, but most teams take offseason events just as serious as onseason events, but thats besides the point. Each ref is suposed to watch one part of the field that thats it. it is thier responsibility to make sure that the area they are watching is in accordance to the rules. from what i understand, the ref that was there didnt know the rules every well. I see that as a problem. at a regional, we have well qualified refs, refs that know the rules very well and call the matches in accordence to the rules. but why is that different at the championship. from what i hear, there was a alot of refs that were first time volunteers. i think that is an issue that needs to be adressed. in the superbowl, you have to be a proven ref to ref, some on that is seasoned and knows the game very well. in FIRST, that is not true. we can have any joe schmoe ref, i think that that is not fair to the compitition.

David Brinza

17-04-2007, 11:24

You dont need to get mad about it "READ THE RULES" trust me ive read them more then once. You were not in the position that all of us were in. We should of had a re-match yet we could not. Yet when 330 played in the finals and their arm broke off they got a re-match. That is what disapoints us most!!!Please understand, I was shouting, but I wasn't angry. The issue about the autonomous keeper needs to be dropped - please look at Post #82 (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showpost.php?p=618318&postcount=82).

As far as the re-match in the finals, 330's arm did not get broken off in that match, there was a "field fault", perhaps related to scoring (I've not heard a clear explanation). Having a robot's arm break off is not a reason for a re-match, it may be a reason to expect a DQ, but that is a referee's judgment call. The head ref has to decide that the action was strategically aimed solely at causing damage to the robot. Without any knowledge of a "history" between Teams 48 and 1114, the head ref may not be looking for this sort of behavior (which I believe is what Tom Line is saying in his post).

Daniel_LaFleur

17-04-2007, 11:26

Then who should take responsibility of all the bad calls in a game? FIRST for not training them well-enough? GDC for creating the rules? I do agree the being a referee is a hard job and I am thankful to all those who volunteered for it. However, the game is the only fair chance for all teams at an event to compete. I can understand a few mistakes in a game but when they miss something obvious repeatedly and call it differently from regional-to-regional and division-to-division, I think someone has to take responsibility. To me being a referee is a huge responsibility and a huge honor. With great power comes great responsibility.

I usually do not like posting these things because CD doesnt take criticism too well. However, I hope next year is a better year.

From the 'tone' of your response, I don't believe you are looking for responsibility, but instead someone to blame.

We should not 'Bash' the refs for any bad calls, but instead talk to them (calmly amd politely) when the match is over, letting them know our point of view. Bashing them here on CD is poor form.

To relate this to professional baseball, Different umpires will call different strike zones. A pitcher has to adjust his game to the different strike zone even though the rules are explicit as to what a strike zone is.

Lets not play the 'blame' game. Lets congratulate the referees for all the calls that they got correct, because it is that difficult to be a referee.

Corey Balint

17-04-2007, 11:29

Well, I don't know exactly where you've been trying to referee, but I'm a Sophomore in college and I this year I refereed at 2 regionals (Pittsburgh and NYC) as well as at the Championship Event.

In my opinion, in response to people questioning the referees consistancy, the referees spent most of Thursday at the Championship discussing the rules and the minor details of the game. The head referees spent even longer discussing each and every rule. The referees in this competition are not oblivious to the controversies the come up within the game.

Now, on being informed of the rules. What you think may be inconsistancies with calls, may just be you just not knowing the rules of the game well enough. Besides the referee meeting, there was the drivers meeting at the championship, where the referees and the drivers discussed certain rules and how the calls were going to be made at the event. The drivers meeting answered all the questions that the drivers from the teams in all the divisions had. Unless you were at that entire drivers meeting, I don't think you have a fair say in how a play should have been called. I don't know what makes some of you think that you can trash the referees, maybe its because you think that unlike teams, they don't read CD.. but they do, and maybe you should be a little more careful about what you say about the referees.
First off, what Tom said is right. In our areas (Boston/NJ/UTC/as well as many others), it is all about giving back to the sponsors and who you know. For the most part, they just laugh, and toss the college kids off to the sides. Boston has been the best though, and allowing some of the younger kids more access to privileged areas. Wayne Penn was a fantastic volunteer coordinator, and much can be said about him. The Regionals you attended have a very small volunteer base, and can do things for college kids.
I must agree with Bharat on this one too. When you have almost the whole entire community complaining about inconsistency, something is wrong. I read the rules 3 times over, I'm a 3 year driver, don't tell me I don't know the rules. I have every right to share my displeasure with all. No one has to do anything about it, that is their right too. I plan on speaking very loudly about poor refereeing. It has been getting progressively worse each year, this year was one of the worst I've seen.
We're the consumer, and very unhappy with the product, why shouldn't we speak up?
Note--I posted a thread in the Modded forum to continue discussion about what we think needs to be improved in FIRST, but they have yet to allow it..

Kevin Sevcik

17-04-2007, 11:32

Then who should take responsibility of all the bad calls in a game? FIRST for not training them well-enough? GDC for creating the rules? I do agree the being a referee is a hard job and I am thankful to all those who volunteered for it. However, the game is the only fair chance for all teams at an event to compete. I can understand a few mistakes in a game but when they miss something obvious repeatedly and call it differently from regional-to-regional and division-to-division, I think someone has to take responsibility. To me being a referee is a huge responsibility and a huge honor. With great power comes great responsibility.

I usually do not like posting these things because CD doesnt take criticism too well. However, I hope next year is a better year.A point to consider:

NFL referees are paid professionals. They have rules that don't change from year to year. Many of them are veterans with decades of experience. They have the wonderful benefit of instant replay. And yet, despite all of this, there's still almost always atleast one bad call in a game. From someone's point of view.

I believe that most of the FRC refs do take their jobs seriously, do take responsibility for their calls, and do come as close as humanly possible to being as perfect as some people seem to think they should be. Mostly, I think people should step back and consider whether they really should be expecting MORE bad calls than there are.

David Brinza

17-04-2007, 11:32

Then who should take responsibility of all the bad calls in a game? FIRST for not training them well-enough? GDC for creating the rules? I do agree the being a referee is a hard job and I am thankful to all those who volunteered for it. However, the game is the only fair chance for all teams at an event to compete. I can understand a few mistakes in a game but when they miss something obvious repeatedly and call it differently from regional-to-regional and division-to-division, I think someone has to take responsibility. To me being a referee is a huge responsibility and a huge honor. With great power comes great responsibility.

I usually do not like posting these things because CD doesnt take criticism too well. However, I hope next year is a better year.
I think I've heard Dean state more than once "life isn't always fair". FIRST isn't exempt from this statement. It's very hard to accept that fact. We need to accept that there will be errors in judgment. It's a different matter if there are clear biases being shown by referees. FIRST deals with this by virtue of a "Conflict of Interest" form that is signed by referees and even robot inspectors. If anyone believes a referee is biased (intentially making calls in favor or against any teams), that needs to be addressed to FIRST - privately, not here in CD.

We live in a world where distrust has made life more difficult than it needs to be. Hence the need for so many laws, so many pages in a contract and so many people needed to protect our interests (lawyers, judges, police, etc.). I'd like to think that within the FIRST community, a higher level of trust exists than in the rest of the world. For the most part, that's been my experience and that's why I believe in FIRST.

Ian Mackenzie

17-04-2007, 12:27

And before you say that 48 didn't back up 3 feet for 3 seconds, that rule doesn't apply when you are pushing back and moving back the 3 feet WITH THEM. That only makes it easier/quicker for them to re-engage in a pushing match they're sure to win.
The pinning stopped at 1:10 and started again at 1:14 (that's 4 seconds btw) and they certainly moved back more than 3 feet. If 1114 wanted to get out of that situation they should have stayed put, turned to the side and booked it out of there in the 3+ seconds and 3+ feet they had available instead of chasing after them for god's sake!
(watch carefully the space in between 1114 and the RACK, not 48 and 1114.)

I see several people saying 1114 was pinned the whole time. No they weren't. They continued contact with 48 when 48 backed off. That is not 48's fault, and does not constitute a continuing pin count.

I sort of figured somebody else would jump on this, but can someone please explain why the pinned robot backing up with the pinning robot means the pinning count should stop? Of course 1114 backed up with 48 - our driver was undoubtedly pushing back against them trying to get out, so when they backed off we did too. Nowhere in the rules, or in any Q&A that I'm aware of, does it say that the motion of the pinned robot has anything to do with the pinning call. As I interpret it, once pinning starts, to stop the count the pinning robot must back up 3 feet away from the pinning position, stay there for 3 seconds, and can then move back, regardless of where the pinned robot moves during that time.

After watching the video in more detail, however, 1114's action of backing up following the break did a substantial amount of the separating and final amputation. It appears once they realized their arm was broken, they did what was necessary to extract themselves from the ringer to go continue to be productive on the other side of the field. I would expect nothing less from such fierce competitors. I think the act of 1114 helping to sever their own arm is important to note, considering everyone is attaching the "vicious" appearance of the entire process solely to 48's robot.

Sorry, Travis, but I think you're really stretching it here - the arm was snapped off and completely useless by the time 1114 started moving.

Also, a few other observations having studied the video, purely from the DRIVER'S point of view.

The middle spider was almost full at the time this happened, so visibility was limited, especially for a kid who's really not that tall.
If you look, the difference in position between the "I have a ringer and I want to score on the middle spider" arm position and the "I'm being pushed into the middle spider by a defender" arm position isn't all that significant, and much of the arm is obscured by ringers already scored at the height of the middle spider level.
The announcer didn't indicate he was aware of the broken arm until 1114 started ripping away from the part still attached to the spider leg. His attention may have been diverted elsewhere for a few moments, but his vantagepoint was unquestionably better than our driver's. If he didn't notice this until later, is it out of the question to believe our driver couldn't tell the arm was broken?
Finally, I can never really tell if the blue ringer was ever officially scored per the rules. At the end, when 1114's arm was dangling off of it, the ringer was perched on top of the "stinger". Does this count as being scored? I really don't know - we aren't in the business of scoring ringers (save for an attempt to score a keeper in auton on Thursday).

I don't think I can agree that the driver couldn't see well enough to tell what was happening, especially given that Jay Trzaskos has mentioned that he clearly saw the arm snap while standing behind the 48 driver station. And I think we all know that announcers are very often watching a different part of the field (pinning is usually pretty boring to watch), so I don't think the delay in announcing proves anything.

To me, there are two key points. First is the celebration in the driver's station which, even in the heat of the moment, I think is completely unacceptable. I didn't see it myself, but I have been told about it from too many independent, reliable sources to discount it. Second is one that hasn't been pointed out - in the video, it is quite clear in the 2-3 seconds before the arm breaking that it is bending back significantly, so there was ample opportunity to realize what was going to happen. I'm not ready to say the entire incident was premeditated, but there certainly wasn't any particular effort to avoid it, and it would have been easy to (near the end, the 1114 robot was clearly pinned, and in no position to score, so 48 could quite safely have stopped pushing).

I'm less annoyed at the referees; I may disagree with how things were called, but at least in the case of pinning I can see there being confusion about the rule (since it was changed at the drivers' meeting) and aggressive play is ultimately a judgment call anyways. However, I think the situation could have used some judicious penalties, e.g. a 10 point pinning penalty and a 10 point aggressive play penalty, or two 10 point pinning penalties, either of which would have conveniently brought the score to 10-10 and allowed for a rematch. As has been pointed out, not scoring the keeper was the right call, and unless the ringer with the arm was jostled off the stinger onto the leg, not scoring it was the right call as well (although I was told that the head ref said it wasn't scored because the arm was attached - perhaps there was some sort of miscommunication).

thoughtful

17-04-2007, 12:33

First of all congratulations to team 1114 for another great year, and all the teams on both the alliances. Let us keep the discussion down to facts without our own perceptions and emotions involved.

I was not at the Championships but I have personally seen 1114's bot at GTR and it was one of the best and most robust bots there. This has been their tradition since they started FIRST, as 1219 is not far from them in the pits. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to doubt their engineering or robustness.

I think the biggest question in this situation is not about whether the calls should have been different or whether the pinning was illegal. These things are too objective to debate about; they are in the past now. As teams in FIRST we realize that things happen and the show must go on.

However, reading this thread I have read 3-4 reports of a single person or a group of people witnessing celebration from the team in question (48) after this unfortunate event. As a historian if you were to write about this event, those eyewitnesses will weigh heavily in your decision. I personally think that this hurts team 1114 greatly because such a matter should not be celebrated upon and it shatters the great image of FIRST held in our hearts. I am not going to make a judgment as to if the celebration was because of the arm and I would assume and hope that there is a better explanation. But I would definitely want to hear this explanation.

Cory

17-04-2007, 12:46

Now, on being informed of the rules. What you think may be inconsistancies with calls, may just be you just not knowing the rules of the game well enough. Besides the referee meeting, there was the drivers meeting at the championship, where the referees and the drivers discussed certain rules and how the calls were going to be made at the event. The drivers meeting answered all the questions that the drivers from the teams in all the divisions had. Unless you were at that entire drivers meeting, I don't think you have a fair say in how a play should have been called. I don't know what makes some of you think that you can trash the referees, maybe its because you think that unlike teams, they don't read CD.. but they do, and maybe you should be a little more careful about what you say about the referees.

Yes, referees are volunteers. Yes, they are doing their best.

But clearly their best is not good enough. Maybe that isn't their fault. Maybe FIRST is not training them well enough. Maybe a lot of different things are contributing to the problem.

Bashing the referees is not ok. But overall this year has had the all around worst officiating I've seen in my 7 years in FRC. Some of it has been inconsistincies in the rules. Some of it has been flat out not knowing the rules. Some of it has been referees just not paying attention.

I've been a referee. I refereed three events in 05 (by far the hardest year to ref). I understand that everyone is human and makes mistakes. In fact, I was part of the ref crew at SVR that was involved in one of the biggest controversies of the year. I'd like to think I have some basis for understanding the difficulty of the job of the referee.

FIRST should at the very least address the consistency of the head refereeing. There is no way they will ever be able to field ref crews at every regional that are composed of multi year FIRST participants who have a very good idea of what kind of contact is acceptable and what is not. However, they absolutely must have a head ref who is on the same page as all the other head refs, and they must have the proper training to be able to train their other referees.

If this means that FIRST needs to train and pay 10-20 head referees to attend every event during the season, then that is what needs to be done. Teams are paying far too much money to show up at an event and then find out the rules will be called very differently from the way they were written, because the referees are interpreting them differently.

And as much as the referees do give up their time to come volunteer let's face it--some of them should not be refereeing. Some have never even seen the rulebook until they show up at the event. Some still don't know the rulebook completely even after the event. Perhaps there should be some sort of rules quiz given to the referees at each event to ensure that they at the very least understand all the basic rules like: when you can touch the controls after auton, when you receive penalties for home zone violations, etc.

Alan Anderson

17-04-2007, 12:53

...can someone please explain why the pinned robot backing up with the pinning robot means the pinning count should stop?

Pinning is parenthetically defined by <G39> as "inhibit[ing] the movement of another ROBOT while in contact with a field element or border". As soon as the victim moves away from the field element, it is no longer being pinned.

Alan Anderson

17-04-2007, 13:06

We're the consumer, and very unhappy with the product, why shouldn't we speak up?

We're not just consumers. We're active participants. We don't just receive services. We perform services. We can't just complain that FIRST needs to improve. We are FIRST.

We shouldn't just speak up. We should take part. We need to make the changes.

The problem seems to be that some of the refs are having problems fulfilling the task given to them. Unless you can find funding to train and maintain a professional corps of FIRST referees, I think the best way to help is to inspire enthusiastic and capable volunteers to step forward. Complaining that the refs are [insert derogatory or insulting adjective here] certainly won't make others want to take on the job.

Corey Balint

17-04-2007, 13:12

We're not just consumers. We're active participants. We don't just receive services. We perform services. We can't just complain that FIRST needs to improve. We are FIRST.

We shouldn't just speak up. We should take part. We need to make the changes.

The problem seems to be that some of the refs are having problems fulfilling the task given to them. Unless you can find funding to train and maintain a professional corps of FIRST referees, I think the best way to help is to inspire enthusiastic and capable volunteers to step forward. Complaining that the refs are [insert derogatory or insulting adjective here] certainly won't make others want to take on the job.
It isn't just complaining that we are doing here. We are trying to see what is wrong and tryign to make everyone aware of what we think needs to be improved. To me, it seems like we have attempted to take part a few times this year, and haven't been responded to very well. In some cases though (algorithm), it wasn't all of the parent company's fault.
It really would not be that hard to train a core group of refs on how to call the game. You can just make a quick video reel of examples of what everything is. There should be more of a requirement to ref, rather than just selecting someone who is high up in a company and you want it to look good. I know many people that could have done a better job this weekend, and would have loved to.

thoughtful

17-04-2007, 13:17

The problem seems to be that some of the refs are having problems fulfilling the task given to them. Unless you can find funding to train and maintain a professional corps of FIRST referees, I think the best way to help is to inspire enthusiastic and capable volunteers to step forward. Complaining that the refs are [insert derogatory or insulting adjective here] certainly won't make others want to take on the job.

I think you are absolutely right. Complaining is not the solution, if there are not enough capable volunteer referees or enough funding, then we need to step up and lead the way. We are a part of this, this is not a resturant where we go to get a meal and expect good customer service. This is an organization, a culture, more importantly our organization and our culture. It reflects our values and we reflect its values, so lets try to make changes for the better starting from ourselves.

Again going back to the topic, I dont think the problem is about refereeing or the pinning penalty, as was eluded by some 1114 members. I am waiting for an explanation of the celebration (of team 48) that was seen by a considerable number of people. I am sure there is a good explanation (I hope) and once we find that explanation we can lay this matter to rest.

Hadi379

17-04-2007, 13:17

In defense of team 48:

I have had the privilage of working with Delphi E.L.I.T.E. for two years now. This is the first year we have actually been teamed up with 48 as an alliance in the elimination rounds (Buckeye Regional winners: 291, 48, 379) and greatly appreciated their assistance in every aspect of FIRST. 48 is approx. 15 minutes down the road from us, and I have gotten to know the advisors, as well as the team very well. It hurts me to see so many people criticizing their performance. I truly believe that the drive team had no intentions of breaking 1114's arm, and yes, I was there, and did watch the match. I could not see any advisor or drive coach on this team condoning such an act, let alone celebrating it. This is a competition, and stuff like this happens, sometimes out of our control. Up to this point, Team 48 has had a very respectable reputation throughout the FIRST community. For people to bash a team in the manner that I have been reading in this thread is far beyond gracious professionalism.

Ashraf Hadi
Team 379
Build Advisor

Corey Balint

17-04-2007, 13:24

Again going back to the topic, I dont think the problem is about refereeing or the pinning penalty, as was eluded by some 1114 members. I am waiting for an explanation of the celebration (of team 48) that was seen by a considerable number of people. I am sure there is a good explanation (I hope) and once we find that explanation we can lay this matter to rest.
To touch on this, I think the celebration is understandable for one major reason. What do you do, if you have just won the biggest match of your season? You are happy, you cheer. No matter what happened to the other team, any true competitor's first thought is "Oh my goodness, we just won!" Then not until after the fact, would it hit you what happened. I'm not saying 48 was in the right to cheer about the arm breaking, there is no hard evidence on that, but it was fine for them to cheer after the match.

Ian Mackenzie

17-04-2007, 13:26

Pinning is parenthetically defined by <G39> as "inhibit[ing] the movement of another ROBOT while in contact with a field element or border". As soon as the victim moves away from the field element, it is no longer being pinned.

Good point, although I think you could make an argument that "the count doesn't stop until the pinning robot has backed up 3 feet for 3 seconds" (the addition to the rule introduced at the drivers' meeting) takes precedence over whether pinning was actually interrupted by the pinned robot moving away from the field element. As the rules were originally written, you are correct, and we could get into a whole other discussion about whether rules should be changed for Championship, but that's beyond the point.

thoughtful

17-04-2007, 13:30

To touch on this, I think the celebration is understandable for one major reason. What do you do, if you have just won the biggest match of your season? You are happy, you cheer. No matter what happened to the other team, any true competitor's first thought is "Oh my goodness, we just won!" Then not until after the fact, would it hit you what happened. I'm not saying 48 was in the right to cheer about the arm breaking, there is no hard evidence on that, but it was fine for them to cheer after the match.

Have been a driver I understand that after the match is over one would celebrate. That is totaly understandable. However, some reports from this thread report celebration after the arm was broken(as I understand this was during the match) where as other people deny this. I would personally like to hear more eyewitnesses that were there on the scene and saw the presence or absence of this celebration. Because team 1114 has been hurt, and on the otherhand team 48 might be wrongfully blamed. For me the matter hinges on if there was indeed celebration at the breaking of the arm, if yes then there has to be a reasonable and good explanation. So that the two teams can lay this behind them and continue in a GP way from here on.

Hadi379

17-04-2007, 13:34

how can 48 backup 3' feet if 1114 backs up with them? Although 48 does attempt to backup, seperation is never created due to the fact that 1114 backs up with 48 and remains in contact with them.

Tristan Lall

17-04-2007, 13:35

Pinning is parenthetically defined by <G39> as "inhibit[ing] the movement of another ROBOT while in contact with a field element or border". As soon as the victim moves away from the field element, it is no longer being pinned.As I interpret it, once pinning starts, to stop the count the pinning robot must back up 3 feet away from the pinning position, stay there for 3 seconds, and can then move back, regardless of where the pinned robot moves during that time.It seems that the rules distinguish between the pinning itself (i.e. the definition that Alan quoted), and the time during which the robot is backing off.

My preferred interpretation of <G39> would be that the pinning count starts as soon as the pinning begins, and pauses whenever pinning ceases. When pinning ceases, the pinning team may back up 3 feet from the last position it occupied while it was still pinning, at which point a second, 3-second count begins. When that second count is exhausted, the first count is reset; but if the second count doesn't finish, and the team resumes pinning, the first count resumes from where it left off. This isn't the only possible interpretation, however, and I can understand that an alternate reading of the rule can greatly affect one's assessment of the situation in question.

By way of example of an alternate interpretation, there's a case to be made for the contention that the rule only specifies the 3-second retreat if pinning has occurred for a full and continuous 10 seconds. If pinning occurs for 8 seconds, is interrupted briefly for 1 second, and occurs again for another 8 seconds, you could argue that at no time did you "inhibit the movement of another ROBOT" "for more than 10 seconds" (at a time).* I'm skeptical that this was intended by the rule-writers, and I don't know if the rule was ever enforced this way, but as written, it seems that this interpretation is reasonably credible, and could lead to a misunderstanding regarding a referee's call. By this standard, and based upon the archived video footage, it seems like 48 was in full compliance with the pinning rule.

how can 48 backup 3' feet if 1114 backs up with them? Although 48 does attempt to backup, seperation is never created due to the fact that 1114 backs up with 48 and remains in contact with them.I believe that the rule calls for them to back up 3 ft from where they "release[d] the pinned ROBOT".

*This interpretation relies upon the fact that the rule specifies one reason why the 10-second count would be reset (10 s pinning, 3 s retreat), but does not enumerate any other reasons. Logically, we assume that the count resets if you stop pinning for long enough, but it isn't clear exactly when this occurs (assuming that the 10 s count and 3 s retreat are not completed). Since the precise formula for resetting the count (under the most obvious of circumstances) is left to the imagination, it isn't a stretch to speculate that the interpretation that I gave is legitimate.

Karthik

17-04-2007, 13:36

Again going back to the topic, I dont think the problem is about refereeing or the pinning penalty, as was eluded by some 1114 members. I am waiting for an explanation of the celebration (of team 48) that was seen by a considerable number of people. I am sure there is a good explanation (I hope) and once we find that explanation we can lay this matter to rest.

Just to clarify, Team 1114 is not looking for an explanation or any sort of public apology. We've received some fragmented justifications via private channels, and we're content to leave it at that. As far as I'm concerned, this matter is at rest.

Greg Marra

17-04-2007, 14:32

I'd like to be a referee. Unfortunately, all of the events in my area aren't very fond of college folks having ref spots. Or maybe its just me.

Seconded. I would love to ref, but it seems that the ref positions are never assigned to college refs. It's especially hard, because FIRST wants people with reffing experience, which gives no opportunity to get any except at offseason events.

Pat Arnold

17-04-2007, 15:38

As a MARS Team 1523 supporter watching the match from the arena above the Curie field I found it hard to tell what occurred during the match. My impressions about semifinal 1-3 are an extension of what I saw in 1-1 and 1-2. Semifinal 1-1 was one of the most intense pushing/shoving matches I'd watched all year. It was obvious that both alliances were focused, skilled and determined. It is tremendously unfortunate that there are so many questions about the outcome and intent of their performance.

While I won't second guess the referee rulings, my greatest dissatisfaction throughout the competition and with this match was with how difficult it was to know why/how points (particularly penalty or bonus points) were or were not given. Following the Semifinal 1-3 match other spectators told me that 1114/469/1523 received a 10 point penalty for leaving robot parts on the field (1114's arm). Imagine the outrage this created.

In the future, greater information being shared by the Refs/announcer re: final scores for all matches would be extremely helpful.

Although this is probably not the right place, I'd like to thank Teams 1114 and 469 for allowing MARS Team 1523 to be a part of their tremendous alliance on Curie. The experience and chance to work with these teams was incredible.

Vogel648

17-04-2007, 16:12

In defense of referees, there is no way they are going to be 100% perfect with calls, look at basketball refs, with years of experience they still miss things and get things wrong.

Refs will never be perfect, it would be nice if they were, but they never will be.

GaryVoshol

17-04-2007, 16:13

... from what i understand, the ref that was there didnt know the rules every well. ... from what i hear, there was a alot of refs that were first time volunteers. I'm not sure where you heard that. Did you know that 11 of the referees in Atlanta had been Head Refs at one or more regionals? Did you hear the Chief Ref give the resumes of the field Head Refs, listing 2 or 3 regionals each?

... I'm less annoyed at the referees; I may disagree with how things were called, but at least in the case of pinning I can see there being confusion about the rule (since it was changed at the drivers' meeting) ... I thought the 3 feet for 3 seconds rule was new too - lo and behold, it's in the manual. It wasn't a change in the rules.

Then who should take responsibility of all the bad calls in a game? FIRST for not training them well-enough? GDC for creating the rules? I do agree the being a referee is a hard job and I am thankful to all those who volunteered for it. However, the game is the only fair chance for all teams at an event to compete. I can understand a few mistakes in a game but when they miss something obvious repeatedly and call it differently from regional-to-regional and division-to-division, I think someone has to take responsibility. To me being a referee is a huge responsibility and a huge honor...FIRST has some responsibility here. What is written in the manual is NOT what is being enforced in all cases. Yes, I'm saying there are some secret rules interpretations, which may come out only at drivers meetings, or may not be made known at all, and are not documented. For instance, was anyone ever penalized for a "foot-fault" this season? You wonder why? That's all I'm at liberty to say.

Joel J

17-04-2007, 16:19

I'm not sure where you heard that. Did you know that 11 of the referees in Atlanta had been Head Refs at one or more regionals? Did you hear the Chief Ref give the resumes of the field Head Refs, listing 2 or 3 regionals each?

I thought the 3 feet for 3 seconds rule was new too - lo and behold, it's in the manual. It wasn't a change in the rules.

FIRST has some responsibility here. What is written in the manual is NOT what is being enforced in all cases. Yes, I'm saying there are some secret rules interpretations, which may come out only at drivers meetings, or may not be made known at all, and are not documented. For instance, was anyone ever penalized for a "foot-fault" this season? You wonder why? That's all I'm at liberty to say.
Are you saying the refs are well qualified, and thus their rulings are just.. or are you raising a question as to what it takes for a ref to be well-qualified, given that there were a consistent (ly high) number of bad rulings across the divisions?

How many mistakes before THE question can be raised?

Vogel648

17-04-2007, 16:28

Also, I appear to be getting an aweful lot of negative rep for calling that studiness of the arm of 1114 a design flaw. I am 100% certain if they wanted to devote more of their resources to it they could have had a tougher arm. 1114 was, as a believed before coming to Atlanta and going into the finals(which I did not see much of them in), the best team there. The only possible issue I saw with their robot was a lack of horizontal bracing on the arm(which to me seemed the direction it would be more important as opposed to up and down, which to me looked fine). Our robot had a flaw too, our robot didn't have a ramp and overall wasn't that fast. If I were 1114 and I were going to try to make this robot better I would look at some sort of horizontal bracing on the arm, similarly, if I wanted to improve our robot I would make it have some sort of gearbox to go between fast and powerful.
I was on Galileo's field when this happened and a mentor came over and said that 1114's arm was destroyed. I thought to myself that i was thinking this would happen this year. In GLR i remember thinking to myself that their arm is out in the open and could easily be damaged if they were to get played defense on. And look, here is someone who thought the same thing as me. *shrug* I really didn't expect all the hate for making my comment on the design of 1114.

Tom Line

17-04-2007, 16:34

I already posted once regarding why I think the refs did a good job. If they had DQ'd 48, I'm sure we'd be arguing in the other direction. We've already had several discussions regarding lack of DQ's or DQ's without warning. A bit pointless, really.

Let's move on to how this can be prevented in the future.

Clarify and simplify the rules.

I think everyone would agree that this year had far to much rules-lawyering and unhappy folks as a direct result of the rulebook growing to the point where it's become VERY difficult to be proficient at it. When people in this post who are claiming to "know" the rules are disagreeing, the point is pretty much proven.

Simplify the rules. For instance you could disallow pinning entirely. You may push, you may not pin. You may block, you may not pin. You may not hold someone stationary against ANY object. Period. End of story. NO more counting, no more guessing.

While your at it, take a good hard look at the wiring rules, and every other ruleset in the game, and SIMPLIFY it to get us out of this whole rules-lawyer game so many people are falling in to. The quality of the refereeing of the matches is DIRECTLY proportional to the complexity of the rules.

Liz Smith

17-04-2007, 16:53

Are you saying the refs are well qualified, and thus their rulings are just.. or are you raising a question as to what it takes for a ref to be well-qualified, given that there were a consistent (ly high) number of bad rulings across the divisions?

How many mistakes before THE question can be raised?

Honestly, these referees especially at the Championship are not just people they find last minute roaming th Georgia Dome. I consider myself pretty active within FIRST, and in the referee meeting Thursday afternoon I pretty much felt out of place without a 5 or 10 year volunteer pin on my shirt. As stated before, there were at least 11 regional head referees on the floor of the Dome distributed on each of the fields. The referees watch and analyze every single match of each event they attend. With a lot of the referees at the championship officiating at more than regional, by the time they get to the Georgia Dome, I think it makes them pretty well qualified. I think a lot of people are thinking of the referees in the wrong light. They make up part of the FIRST community just as the students, and the mentors and everyone else does.

Corey Balint

17-04-2007, 17:00

The thing about saying there were 11 Head Refs on the floor of the Georgia dome is basically a moot point. Saying they head-reffed means very little to me. There were numerous regionals that were complained about this year for poor reffing, changing the rules, etc.

IndySam

17-04-2007, 17:22

Corey Balint

17-04-2007, 17:24

I take great exception to this statement. I don’t recall any controversial rulings on Archimedes.

Controversial Ruling: The Refs declaring a member of an alliance was not broken, when they should have no say in the matter.

David Brinza

17-04-2007, 17:50

While I won't second guess the referee rulings, my greatest dissatisfaction throughout the competition and with this match was with how difficult it was to know why/how points (particularly penalty or bonus points) were or were not given. Following the Semifinal 1-3 match other spectators told me that 1114/469/1523 received a 10 point penalty for leaving robot parts on the field (1114's arm). Imagine the outrage this created.

In the future, greater information being shared by the Refs/announcer re: final scores for all matches would be extremely helpful. The original score posted was 40-10. A 10-point penalty was later assessed to the red alliance for pinning, final score: 30-10. No penalty was assessed to the blue alliance.

Everyone would like a more complete explanation of penalties and rulings regarding scoring. Keep in mind that FIRST is under considerable time pressure to get the matches completed. The championship event this year ran more than a hour past the scheduled time.

Nawaid Ladak

17-04-2007, 17:53

How to solve this refereeing issue.....

1. KEEP ALL THE CAMERA'S ACTIVE, all the camera's NASA and FIRST use must be kept recorded, therefore, something like this can be replayed to the referees and/or the crowd via the big screen. This will allow the referees a replay of the match from a different angle

2. OPT FOR CAMERAS ON ROBOTS, give teams the option to add cameras to their robot (1523 did this at the Florida Regional in 2005 and it looked pretty cool). give the referees and the FIRST community full access to these cameras, this will ensure that there is no ramming ABOVE the bumper zone

3. HIRE THE REFEREE'S, get someone who is not familiar to the game, who won't play favorites, who has refereed something else before like football or basketball. (basketball being the better, due to the active amount of game play.) therefore the refs are eliminated from the blame, if the refs are paid it will only bump registration up a maximum amount of say $100, that $100 from each team = $4000 per referee team consisting of 8 refs, 4 refs at the corners, a head ref, a clock operator, a red alliance ref, and a blue alliance ref. Now the referees will not be afraid of throwing out the yellow card or red card

4. CREATE A CHALLENGE SYSTEM, allow teams a form to challenge the refs, like in football, with the things stated above, this would be a affordable way to make sure problems like what happened last Saturday won't happen again, remember, 1114 had to complain to get that 10 point penalty. but a system needs to be set up, ie: teams can challenge to get a penelty but not for removing one, an item on the feild, like a removed ringer etc.

__________ Other Items

karthik, thanks for updating us on the situation, I would still love to hear from someone on the field from Team 48 though, i think that would give a lot of us the answers that we want.

Saying that 1114 are the good guys and 48 are the bad guys is a ridiculous statement. Some of us watch sports, lets say Peyton Manning is playing in the Super bowl and Brian Urlacker takes out Peyton's knees while tackling him as he is throwing the ball downfallen to a wide open Marvin Harrison, note, the game is in Overtime. Are you making a game saving tackle, or taking out a talented player from ever playing to his former level???

Jason Morrella

17-04-2007, 18:00

I take great exception to this statement. I don’t recall any controversial rulings on Archimedes.

I was not on the other fields to see the lack of rule enforcement others have talked about, but I was on Archimedes, and it was just as stunning.

In the semi finals one robot used it's arm to hit/push another robot up high, on it's side, above/out of the bumper zone and tip them over. The robot that tipped the other was not holding a tube, was not attempting to get one, and was not interacting with the rack - there was only one possible reason for the manuever they used and only one possible result, which happened. It was such an obvious DQ, that most around the field watched the rest of the match not really into the last 1:30 because they knew the match was going to have a DQ for the tip. To the shock of most everyone, no DQ was called and it determined who went to the finals.

The DQ called on Einstein for tipping was nowhere near as obvious or intentional as the non call on Archimedes. It's one thing not to call an obvious DQ, but an entirely different thing to then call a DQ for something not nearly as flagrant.

One thing to point out - a "no call" on an obvious rule violation and DQ has just as much impact on the outcome of a match as calling a penalty or a DQ - just that the alliance who didn't violate any rules is the one punished instead of a the other way around.

And as the previous post mentioned, if an alliance had a robot whose ramps had a problem and weren't working correctly and wanted to bring in the next highest seeded robot, as the rules state, and a referee doesn't allow it - then that is another instance where the refs were not following the rule book and were determining the outcome of the event. Very unfortunate. Also unfortunate for the next highest ranked team in Archimedes who should have been allowed to experience and play in the playoffs, but did not get to because a referee didn't follow the rules and ovestepped their role/responsibility.

So yes, the outcomes of matches on the Archimedes field were changed and impacted by refs not enforcing the rules just like appears to have happened on other fields. Very unfortunate for all the teams and the event in general.

Corey Balint

17-04-2007, 18:01

How to solve this refereeing issue.....

1. KEEP ALL THE CAMERA'S ACTIVE, all the camera's NASA and FIRST use must be kept recorded, therefore, something like this can be replayed to the referees and/or the crowd via the big screen. This will allow the referees a replay of the match from a different angle

2. OPT FOR CAMERAS ON ROBOTS, give teams the option to add cameras to their robot (1523 did this at the Florida Regional in 2005 and it looked pretty cool). give the referees and the FIRST community full access to these cameras, this will ensure that there is no ramming ABOVE the bumper zone

3. HIRE THE REFEREE'S, get someone who is not familiar to the game, who won't play favorites, who has refereed something else before like football or basketball. (basketball being the better, due to the active amount of game play.) therefore the refs are eliminated from the blame, if the refs are paid it will only bump registration up a maximum amount of say $100, that $100 from each team = $4000 per referee team consisting of 8 refs, 4 refs at the corners, a head ref, a clock operator, a red alliance ref, and a blue alliance ref. Now the referees will not be afraid of throwing out the yellow card or red card

4. CREATE A CHALLENGE SYSTEM, allow teams a form to challenge the refs, like in football, with the things stated above, this would be a affordable way to make sure problems like what happened last Saturday won't happen again, remember, 1114 had to complain to get that 10 point penalty. but a system needs to be set up, ie: teams can challenge to get a penelty but not for removing one, an item on the feild, like a removed ringer etc.

1 and 4 would waste too much time. 2 and 3 would be too costly.
It doesn't need to be that difficult. You just need a precise ten minute video for demonstrations. A phone conference like they have had, is not the answer.

Don Wright

17-04-2007, 18:01

The original score posted was 40-10. A 10-point penalty was later assessed to the red alliance for pinning, final score: 30-10. No penalty was assessed to the blue alliance.

Actually, the 10 point penalty was assessed for something like "not playing in the spirit of the game". I know. I was there and heard it and was wondering what that meant.

Nawaid Ladak

17-04-2007, 18:06

1 and 4 would waste too much time. 2 and 3 would be too costly.
It doesn't need to be that difficult. You just need a precise ten minute video for demonstrations. A phone conference like they have had, is not the answer.

If your saying what i think your saying, then you can throw out Waterloo Quarter-Final 2.4 in which the ref's replayed the match off a camera and counted the points, ask karthik about this, i want to hear what he has to say about this

Corey Balint

17-04-2007, 18:08

If your saying what i think your saying, then you can throw out Waterloo Quarter-Final 2.4 in which the ref's replayed the match off a camera and counted the points, ask karthik about this, i want to hear what he has to say about this
It has normally been in the rules that refs will not watch video of a match. And if they didn't keep track of the score correctly, maybe they shouldn't be refs at all.

Brian Beatty

17-04-2007, 18:09

I would like to take a different approach to this whole argument. First off, 1114's arm was not the first arm to be tore off this year. Our team's( 71 ) arm was tore off in MWR during eliminations( no call )--and there was much rejoicing. Did we like it? No. But we accepted it as part of the game. Of course, we took the opportunity to reinforce the broken area.

The question being asked right now is the wrong question. We should not ask,"Did 48 try to purposely break 1114's arm and did they intentionally pin for more than 10 seconds?" but we should ask, "How much defense should we allow in FIRST and under what conditions?". FIRST has run the whole gambit of human emotion from 2001 with no defense to 2002 and 2003, which was all out war. A game like 2001, which we at Team Hammond liked a lot, was chastised as "too boring", or "Darn--my failed offensive design couldn't be morphed into a beater to be competitive". After 2003, the game of denial, in which wonderful machines like 67 were never allowed to do their thing, FIRST started to change the rules to allow "vigorous intereaction", but protect offensive machines from annihiliation. The rules have been tightened as we went to no tipping, no wedge bots, no ramming,no high hitting, to the yellow/red card system, but still allow "vigorous interaction". As long as we allow "vigorous interaction", we will be subject to human interpretation. And as long as this human element remains, these discussions will continue.

In conclusion, I feel for 1114's tough break, but if a bad call/no call was made, that's the game. The only way to end these human element disputes is the "nuclear option" --no defense.

Sincerely,

Brian Beatty

Joel J

17-04-2007, 18:10

If your saying what i think your saying, then you can throw out Waterloo Quarter-Final 2.4 in which the ref's replayed the match off a camera and counted the points, ask karthik about this, i want to hear what he has to say about this
That Waterloo match was an exception, IMO. At most every other point where a video review was requested, it was denied because the rules state that video will not be reviewed by referees.

I like the idea of a challenge system (the difference being that a challenger receives the penalty/card/DQ if they are found to be wrong, beyond a reasonable doubt) to allow the official review of video, or some other form of strong supporting evidence.

cziggy343

17-04-2007, 18:16

guys (and gals), we can go through this all through the offseason. the point is that the outcome of the match is not going to be changed. there have been an exorbanent amount of times this year that very tough defense was played on us. should it have been called that we ended up tangled in the rack? maybe. but we knew that nothing would be changed.

from experience, i agree with someone earlier in the thread that through the rack, it is very hard to see wat the crap is going on. because in the one match that i was on the drive team, we went against 330, and was told to play defence wherever they went. then 535 pins us against the wall for a time that also could be questionable. during this match, we almost tipped 330 over. this would've been unintentional, but say that we tip 330, would they have counted that as intentional tipping? i dont know. but stories could be told just by me for a long while. matches won't get thrown out, scores won't be changed. the head ref's calls are final weather we agree with them or not.

my $0.02

henryBsick

17-04-2007, 18:22

It has normally been in the rules that refs will not watch video of a match. And if they didn't keep track of the score correctly, maybe they shouldn't be refs at all.

//starting to stray
As was the case for 125's first qualifying match. Brandon Martus can attest: as he was the IFI official for Archimedes. We ran with 768 who was taking match video. In some odd manner our radio signals became 'mixed' in some way. Sometimes we would have control of their bot or a portion of ours, or both of the drive bases. It was an odd cenario that I thought could never happen. The 768 video showed their drive team talking to Brandon behind the glass while no one was near the control board, yet their robot made an appearance across the screen which was not due to uncentered sticks.
Once I saw the video I told the members of 125 and 768 going to present it: "Do not expect them to even look at it, and if they do, do not expect a rematch... that isn't how FIRST works it will purely be proof of the event."
The video was shown just for future knowledge of the incedent. Brandon, if you could shed some light on the subject that would be awesome. I never talked to any official personally, I got the info from word of mouth.

Proof of Corey's point

Travis Hoffman

17-04-2007, 18:32

In conclusion, I feel for 1114's tough break, but if a bad call/no call was made, that's the game. The only way to end these human element disputes is the "nuclear option" --no defense.

Sincerely,

Brian Beatty

Brian, while I respect your opinion and that of all the other teams who prefer to practice their offensive craft without being harassed by the little guy, I'm not going to let one unfortunate accident out of countless cleanly and safely played qualifying and elimination round matches over the course of four competitions this season serve as the galvanizing symbol for some kind of offensive rallying cry to eliminate all defense in FIRST competitions.

I continue to believe that defense is an integral and necessary part of the game which adds a dynamic flair to the competition (robots changing strategies on the fly) and if done right, can better engage the audience in the on the field action. I thought the GDC did an excellent job this year of creating a game where both offensive and defensive alliances could equally show off their skills AND succeed. You need look no further than the Einstein finals to see the kind of alliance diversity that was allowed to shine through to the final stage. Some may have found the Einstein finals boring; I found them to be a refreshing mix of both offensive and defensive strategies on display at the same time.

I feel a combination of better education and rule enforcement are the best ways to eliminate the most egregious forms of damage due to excessive defense. How are teams expected to know what not to do if no one shows them exactly what not to do? Set the limit visually and then enforce it. FIRST has a safety video it shows at each competition - why not a defense video? Combine examples of appropriate and inappropriate contact using real robots with other examples of taboo actions and the corresponding penalties that may be called. If teams see what is illegal before the competition begins, they will have a weaker argument when challenging any referees' calls, and the refs will be more empowered to make the tough calls when they are needed. It will also give all referees a common visual baseline upon which all their subsequent rulings can be built.

Corey Balint

17-04-2007, 18:34

Brian, while I respect your opinion and that of all the other teams who prefer to practice their offensive craft without being harassed by the little guy, I'm not going to let one unfortunate accident out of countless cleanly and safely played qualifying and elimination round matches over the course of four competitions this season serve as the galvanizing symbol for some kind of offensive rallying cry to eliminate all defense in FIRST competitions.

I continue to believe that defense is an integral and necessary part of the game which adds a dynamic flair to the competition (robots changing strategies on the fly) and if done right, can better engage the audience in the on the field action. I thought the GDC did an excellent job this year of creating a game where both offensive and defensive alliances could equally show off their skills AND succeed.

I feel a combination of BETTER EDUCATION and RULE ENFORCEMENT are the best ways to eliminate the most egregious forms of damage due to excessive defense. How are teams expected to know what not to do if no one shows them exactly what not to do? Set the limit visually and then ENFORCE IT. We have safety videos we show at each competition - why not a defense video? Combine examples of appropriate and inappropriate contact using REAL ROBOTS with other examples of taboo actions and the corresponding penalties that may be called. If teams see what is illegal before the competition begins, THEY WILL HAVE A WEAKER ARGUMENT WHEN CHALLENGING THE REFEREES, AND THE REFEREES WILL BE MORE EMPOWERED TO MAKE THE TOUGH CALLS WHEN THEY ARE NEEDED.
I agree with you on that Travis. There is no way you can eliminate defense for a few reasons, a couple you already posted. But another major one I can think of, is the inability of some teams to build something complex, like an arm, that can function on a winning level.

Kevin Sevcik

17-04-2007, 18:41

3. HIRE THE REFEREE'S, get someone who is not familiar to the game, who won't play favorites, who has refereed something else before like football or basketball. (basketball being the better, due to the active amount of game play.) therefore the refs are eliminated from the blame, if the refs are paid it will only bump registration up a maximum amount of say $100, that $100 from each team = $4000 per referee team consisting of 8 refs, 4 refs at the corners, a head ref, a clock operator, a red alliance ref, and a blue alliance ref. Now the referees will not be afraid of throwing out the yellow card or red card I think it's going to be difficult to find someone who wants this thankless task for $500 and about a week of work. It might be a nice gesture to our current volunteers, though.

It doesn't need to be that difficult. You just need a precise ten minute video for demonstrations. A phone conference like they have had, is not the answer.You're blithely stating here that you can fit the entirety of borderline and questionable calls into a 10 minute video. I find it difficult to believe you could fit enough material onto even a 2 hour DVD. At least, that's assuming you want calls based entirely on the situations from the video. Otherwise you're still depending on human judgement. Honestly, we're going to keep arguing about reffing until the GDC designs a game where we build robot refs, or everyone accepts the fact that people are human and there are far more people in the audience judging the refs than there are refs to watch the field.

Cody Carey

17-04-2007, 18:45

Alex Cormier

17-04-2007, 18:54

But another major one I can think of, is the inability of some teams to build something complex, like an arm, that can function on a winning level.

I rarely call out people, but in this case i feel a minor need to do so. I will not speak names though.

Not everyone feels this way sadly, i will say that one of the well known mentors on this forum has had a conversation with me basically saying a robot that does nothing but play D is not good enough. Having a built robot to play a certain style, maybe not be a total Difference Maker offense is not good enough to make them proud. I know i would be very proud with anything that is finished and been able to play on the field. Sadly, not everyone see's it this way.

To keep this post, within this thread and such, i see no problem with D in the game and seek a change similar to what Travis is saying.

Edit//
Per request from the person, for some odd reason he wants to be kown for this. The person is your beloved John V Neun

Rich Ross

17-04-2007, 19:09

Pat Arnold

17-04-2007, 19:20

Everyone would like a more complete explanation of penalties and rulings regarding scoring. Keep in mind that FIRST is under considerable time pressure to get the matches completed. The championship event this year ran more than a hour past the scheduled time.

I don't think a quick explanation re: how or what penalty/bonus was incurred/awarded would slow matches down. There is always down time as robots are collected or set up on the field between matches. The educational benefit for spectators and teams would be great. It would cut down on misunderstandings on just how final scores were arrived at. It is valuable hearing explanations why flags are thrown in other sports.

Doug G

17-04-2007, 19:24

Yes, Travis I couldn't agree more... defense is there, and it always will be. If it weren't, FIRST would not be the same competition. It is there for "the little guy". It makes it so teams that don't have thousands of dollars to spend on building their robot can compete with what they are given in the kit. To suggest eliminating it is (for lack of a better phrase) Just plain stupid. Would you watch football if there were no defense? Would you watch soccer, hockey, or any other sport? I don't think so.

Defense is part of the game, and it especially was this year (contrary to my original thoughts) . The fact that one bad thing happened to one robot Doesn't mean it should be sneered at or looked down upon.

Defensive play is getting a bit out of hand. Partly due to the nature of the game but also how much of it went "unpunished". We were the victims of questionable defensive play at Bayou (that's in another thread) that went without a penalty. The sad thing is because of the lack of penalty calls at that regional, our driver played much more aggressively at our next regional and tipped a robot in the final match. He flat out admitted it to me and didn't feel that bad about it (he knew we were going to lose). Very disheartening.

I don't think defense needs to be there for the "little guy". We're given a kit frame, wheels, and transmissions. Even the little guy needs more of a challenge than to build a defense bot.

Would a more offensive focused game be that bad next year? Some twist on 2001 perhaps. I really enjoyed some of the offensive matches where the whole rack was almost full of ringers and robots rushing back to do the ramps at the end. I found that very exciting, didn't anyone else?

4throck

17-04-2007, 19:36

Defensive play is getting a bit out of hand. Partly due to the nature of the game but also how much of it went "unpunished". We were the victims of questionable defensive play at Bayou (that's in another thread) that went without a penalty. The sad thing is because of the lack of penalty calls at that regional, our driver played much more aggressively at our next regional and tipped a robot in the final match. He flat out admitted it to me and didn't feel that bad about it (he knew we were going to lose). Very disheartening.

I don't think defense needs to be there for the "little guy". We're given a kit frame, wheels, and transmissions. Even the little guy needs more of a challenge than to build a defense bot.

Would a more offensive focused game be that bad next year? Some twist on 2001 perhaps. I really enjoyed some of the offensive matches where the whole rack was almost full of ringers and robots rushing back to do the ramps at the end. I found that very exciting, didn't anyone else?

I have to say I agree with this post. We were at Curie too, and as the competition went on, the play got more and more violent. Let's just say that no one was surprised when the Curie alliance got DQed at Einstein for playing the same way they had been playing. By not calling it, the refs allowed it to escalate. It is hard to say where the line should be drawn, but the rough play exhibited throughout the finals crossed it, especially when it came to ramming and pinning.

Additionaly, the penalties are not big enough to truly prevent this kind of play. At Chesapeake in the elimination rounds, we had another teams arm enter our robot and yank out a wire. For this, they recieved 30 points worth of penalties and a yellow flag. A shame that the unpenalized score was 64-32. When a single ringer can more than cancel out penalties for rough play, the penalties don't mean anything, and they will not deter illegal play.

Kate00

17-04-2007, 20:02

3) I believe everyone was watching the finals on einstein. Please make the playing field leveled.

The DQ called on Einstein for tipping was nowhere near as obvious or intentional as the non call on Archimedes. It's one thing not to call an obvious DQ, but an entirely different thing to then call a DQ for something not nearly as flagrant.

Just speculating here, but perhaps the refs heard about the incidents on both Archimedes and Curie, and may have tried to improve the quality of the reffing for the finals on Einstein. If this is true, I commend them for realizing their mistakes and trying to fix them, and my question then becomes why this only came up for the last two rounds of play in the entire season, and not after 37 regional competitions.

Corey Balint

17-04-2007, 20:06

Just speculating here, but perhaps the refs heard about the incidents on both Archimedes and Curie, and may have tried to improve the quality of the reffing for the finals on Einstein. If this is true, I commend them for realizing their mistakes and trying to fix them, and my question then becomes why this only came up for the last two rounds of play in the entire season, and not after 37 regional competitions.
I know I have definitely discussed these reffing issues numerous times before, most notably in the Palmetto Regional thread.

cziggy343

17-04-2007, 20:09

Just speculating here, but perhaps the refs heard about the incidents on both Archimedes and Curie, and may have tried to improve the quality of the reffing for the finals on Einstein. If this is true, I commend them for realizing their mistakes and trying to fix them, and my question then becomes why this only came up for the last two rounds of play in the entire season, and not after 37 regional competitions.

there were definantly questionable calls during the 37 regionals, but the mistakes are amplifide once teams get to the championships. many stories could be told about the questionable call at the regionals too.

Brian Beatty

17-04-2007, 20:25

AdamHeard

17-04-2007, 20:30

Travis,

I apologize for my post was not being quite clear. I agree with you that I liked this years game, as well as 2004,2005, 2006 and that defense can make it more exciting. I am not necessarily advocating no defense. My point is this; as long as we have defense, we will have controversy--but there should not be. If the majority wants defense, no problem. Then lump it. And it is always more than just one little incident. 254 could make an argument for no calls on Archimedes. We have been consistently the most defensively abused team in FIRST( 233 took the brunt for us at nats). Like it, no. But we accept it. Yes we can pay the refs, train the refs, ect,ect. But don't expect anything different. And don't give me this little guy-big guy justification for defense. FIRST has to define goals of what it is trying to accomplish in the competition and if it allows a box of rocks to compete effectively against a well-engineered machine, ok( 48 is NOT a box of rocks). Every year we have these monster posts on calls, but why? That is my point.

Sincerely,

Brian Beatty

Better defined rules as well...

I know it's tough, but they need a better way of defining ramming...

When I asked at the driver's meeting, the ref answered that it was completely subjective.

I got called for ramming in qualifying matches on galileo playing 10% as rough as I was in the semi's (sorry for breaking your panel 968, it wasn't intentional) and the final's (sorry for breaking your chain 330, it wasn't intentional) at San Diego. At the end of San Diego I asked theref how much farther would I have had to go to get a ramming penalty, to which he replied "I wouldn't call one because it was all bumper to bumper contact".

When such fluctuation is allowed just in reading the rules, there is a problem.

cziggy343

17-04-2007, 20:33

i agree. there will probably not be any change in the way that calls are made because of humans. each human that makes calls has an opinion, thus, each call that is made is made on the particular judgement of the ref. this is something that cannot be changed.

waialua359

17-04-2007, 20:39

Perhaps, since the game planners (I believe 7 of them) take very seriously game design as well as many scenarios that may happen once THE game is designed, more careful consideration needs to be place on "proper" defense.
The nature and design of the game will greatly determine what kind of defense can/will be played. Maybe that should be looked at it greater detail.
It can be frustrating for teams when many of them with their communities pour their heart and soul into this program, only to be frustrated by outcomes that are unfortunate.
I also believe that more training for referees to be consistent IS necessary. Look at how much teams sacrifice and cough up just to enter a FIRST competition. For all the money that is spent, I would think that FIRST owes it to the program to look at each issue that comes up carefully and make announcements to changes/improvements that they will at least look into.
It is vital to teams staying in the program and feeling like they all matter in the outcomes and adjustments to future competitions.

Travis Hoffman

17-04-2007, 21:18

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54562&

I can't help but think that the Drivetrain "Arm's Race" is not what FIRST is about. Some may feel this is off-topic, but if no robot was capable of exerting a force sufficient to turn the rack or to snap aluminum box tubing, then this wouldn't be a problem.

For the 2007 season, we used standard off the shelf Andy-Mark servo shifters with the same Brecoflex Supergrip Blue treads many teams have used in past seasons. I do not feel there was anything excessive or special about our drivetrain design. Many teams possess this kind of drivetrain ability - we just let ours push too hard one time too much, and an arm was horribly broken, yet it was still repaired in 15 minutes. We may very well have caused other teams damage during the 2007 season due to our aggressive defense, but none of it was apparent to us. If this ever happened, I encourage teams to even now PM me and let me know about it if we caused you undue mechanical problems, as we can't learn from our mistakes if we never know we made any. Other accidents happened that were caused by other teams throughout the year - but perhaps none so visceral occurred on such a visible stage? Again, mistakes happen, and sometimes someone does something dumb and incredibly foolish during the course of making that mistake. We apologize for those mistakes and we hopefully move on.

We did realize there was such a thing as too much oomph and overkill when we designed and builit the custom three-motor shifters and didn't have enough weight to complete the offensive part of our robot - the ramps. We designed the robot to easily climb other ramps, deploy (eventually) effective 2 @ 12 ramps, and play effective defense. I do not feel we overfocused on a single aspect of the game, and our weight budget was ultimately distributed appropriately enough.

I would encourage rookie teams of limited means to use a defensive base as a start, but not make that base the sole design objective for their build season. I do agree that we should raise the bar and ask them to tackle multiple game objectives if it's within their means to do so. But to some teams, just getting the robot to run around and be mobile is success and inspiration enough for them to continue in the program.

But back to one of the main points that keeps this on topic with the discussion, I do believe some kind of FIRST- or team-produced defensive tutorial would help everyone understand what constitutes proper driving and robot interactions and what is typically not allowed. If FIRST constructed the video's development much like the safety animation contest with a list of required criteria to cover, not only would they save on production costs, but perhaps many teams who participated in the contest would learn about safe defense before the build season even got under way? Like Adam mentioned, refs don't even know what to define as ramming. Wouldn't a visual demonstration involving 2 robots, staged according to FIRST's official direction, help refs and participants alike to understand the true definition? Everyone also calls for simpler rules. Well a picture (actually, 30 pictures a second or what have you) is worth a thousand words.

Zuhaib Ali

17-04-2007, 21:22

If your saying what i think your saying, then you can throw out Waterloo Quarter-Final 2.4 in which the ref's replayed the match off a camera and counted the points, ask karthik about this, i want to hear what he has to say about this

The refs replayed the cameras because both alliance captain representative agreed on it and i dont regret our team agreeing because the opposing alliance had beat us fairly. That was a good call and i appreciated that the refs took the time to sort it out or else it had potential for a big discussion that was already in the past.

GaryVoshol

17-04-2007, 21:31

Chris Fultz

17-04-2007, 22:15

Just to clarify, Team 1114 is not looking for an explanation or any sort of public apology. We've received some fragmented justifications via private channels, and we're content to leave it at that. As far as I'm concerned, this matter is at rest.

As I have just spend about an hour reading mostly repeated information about who did what to who and how, along with various comments about referees, rules, FIRST in general and so on and so on,

and the fact that team 1114, quoted above, says "this matter is at rest",

and the expectation that nothing new can / will be added to this debate,

and all that will happen is more people will get upset with more other people

I request that another moderator please close this thread.

"honey, turn the oven off because this cake is done...." :)

Steve W

17-04-2007, 22:29

To allow for others to have their final say, I will close this thread at about 11:30 tonight. I also believe that there is a circular thought in this thread with not too much different being added. If people feel that on going discussion is necessary I will recommend a moderated thread where we don't have to monitor all day.

nightdragon

17-04-2007, 22:48

[QUOTE=4throck;618954]I have to say I agree with this post. We were at Curie too, and as the competition went on, the play got more and more violent. Let's just say that no one was surprised when the Curie alliance got DQed at Einstein for playing the same way they had been playing. By not calling it, the refs allowed it to escalate. It is hard to say where the line should be drawn, but the rough play exhibited throughout the finals crossed it, especially when it came to ramming and pinning.

QUOTE]

Let me start by saying that we did not intentionally try to tip 71. That is not how we played during the matches at Curie, Buckeye, or Florida. Sorry for tipping you guys over. I would really like to find video of exactly how it happened. It definitely took away a match that could have had another great finish like in the second match...you broke our hearts!

I respect the refs decisions, but sometimes there are occasions where mistakes are made. Some can seriously hurt an alliance, others may hurt a teams reputation, but we have to respect them.

Last year at a regional, the previous match score was posted for ours. We protested and the refs claimed it was the right score. When asked to see the sheets that they wrote the scores down on, they could not find them. Later, one of our sponsors told us that they realized their mistake later and that the sheet was never lost. It puts a sour taste in your mouth, but we continued on the best we could.