View Full Version : Silicon Valley Regional 2008
Nuttyman54
17-12-2007, 14:31
Who's pumped for this event? 190's wicked excited to be coming back!
sarcasticmadnes
17-12-2007, 14:42
I AM! 115 will totally be there...like usual :ahh: looking forward to seeing all the new teams there! ;) 12 more weeks to go!
Guy Davidson
17-12-2007, 14:51
As always, Paly Robotics will be there. It will be great to see what 190 will have in store again, you guys always build amazing robots.
=Martin=Taylor=
17-12-2007, 15:06
Team 100 is coming. This will be our second regional for 2008, so we should have more practice.
Good Luck everyone!:]
AdamHeard
17-12-2007, 15:08
team 973 will be there.
Romeo1351
17-12-2007, 19:02
Team 1351's there and ready for action!
CraigHickman
17-12-2007, 19:11
The men/women in white coats should be there in full force, as always. We've got a few design tricks up our sleeve that should bring us up a level in competition. :cool:
Daniel Bathgate
18-12-2007, 11:30
Sacred Heart RADBotics: Team 2144 will be there! And from the list of teams already, it looks like we'll be competing with the best of the best. Can't wait!
D4RK3 54B3R
24-12-2007, 06:18
Team 2473 will be there. Less than 3 months left. Can't wait. :)
The men/women in white coats should be there in full force, as always. We've got a few design tricks up our sleeve that should bring us up a level in competition. :cool:
114 with more tricks up your sleeve, huh? It was inspiring to have personally witnessed your team's action last year@ SVR when we were stationed right next to you in the pits. (We were a bit in awe since we were rookies too :p ) I look forward to seeing your team in action again this year; 2135 will definitely be attending SVR.
1458 is signed up and coming back to SV this year
Woody1458
09-01-2008, 02:40
1458 is pumped for SV as our first regional. I always love that San Jose weather!
This will be, for yet another year, 840's only regional... Davis didn't work out :(
See all you guys there!
Michelle692
23-02-2008, 14:43
692 is extremely excited to be coming back!
octothorpe
23-02-2008, 17:20
Well, 766 will be there, SVR and Davis as usual. Anyone else from SVR going to Davis as well? I know the two are back-to-back this year and that discouraged a lot of Bay Area teams from doing both.
It just wouldn't be the competition season without SJSU's convoluted parking garage and La Victoria Taqueria downtown :D
AdamHeard
23-02-2008, 17:55
Just a heads up; Team 973's safety captain is an avid scrapper and recycler. I have never seen a kid or adult work as hard as this kid in anything. So, if you have any cans, bottles, aluminum scrap, etc... Feel free to offer it to him in 973's pit.
He is a little special, and also loves change. He actually has learned that he can get people to throw change to get him to go away by trying to be annoying. So, if you'd like to get him out of your hair, and donate some money to 973, throw a quarter (He won't go for anything less).
Just a heads up; Team 973's safety captain is an avid scrapper and recycler. I have never seen a kid or adult work as hard as this kid in anything. So, if you have any cans, bottles, aluminum scrap, etc... Feel free to offer it to him in 973's pit.
He is a little special, and also loves change. He actually has learned that he can get people to throw change to get him to go away by trying to be annoying. So, if you'd like to get him out of your hair, and donate some money to 973, throw a quarter (He won't go for anything less).
He's very into FIRST and into safety... I've had people come over to me and ask why our safety captain poked them in the eye... Thats what he does to people not wearing safety glasses. Apologies in advance if that happens to your team.
But yes, he will chase change. If he's starting to bug you go ahead and throw something... We are very aware of how he can get, especially at regionals when he's really excited.
Don't take this as a, mess with the special kid on 973 kind of thing... If you meet Jared you will understand that he is an asset to the team, he just takes some interesting handling. PM me if you have any questions about this.
You also might want to keep an eye on your safety tokens... I won't air that particular bit of dirty laundry in a post... if you want to know PM me about that as well...
Michelle692
23-02-2008, 19:25
Well, 766 will be there, SVR and Davis as usual. Anyone else from SVR going to Davis as well? I know the two are back-to-back this year and that discouraged a lot of Bay Area teams from doing both.
It just wouldn't be the competition season without SJSU's convoluted parking garage and La Victoria Taqueria downtown :D
Yes, 692 is also going to Davis, as usual!
253 is always there! Even though my body is 3000+ miles way my spirit will be there with MRT Team 253!
MRT 253 = Gracious professionalism! Hope you all go say hello to my fellow comrades. Tell them Joseph said hi!
love4hellokitty
24-02-2008, 23:49
692 is extremely excited to be coming back!
Yessss!!!! we definitely are!!
only 17 days, 10 hours, and 11 minutes until SVR !!!!!! :yikes:
can't wait to be there, but lots to do beforehand
eugenebrooks
25-02-2008, 00:15
He's very into FIRST and into safety... I've had people come over to me and ask why our safety captain poked them in the eye... Thats what he does to people not wearing safety glasses. Apologies in advance if that happens to your team.
We are joking here, right?
Poking someone in the eye, regardless of the good cause being
pursued, would not be acceptable.
Eugene
AdamHeard
25-02-2008, 00:26
We are joking here, right?
Poking someone in the eye, regardless of the good cause being
pursued, would not be acceptable.
Eugene
We are aware it is not acceptable.
He is a special kid and doesn't quite grasp all the social rules. He is good natured at heart, and is honestly at least twice as hard working as any person I have ever met. Because of that, he's my favorite kid on the team.
So, if it does happen to you; I apologize, just calm talk with me and we'll try to keep it from happening again.
But hey, my first introduction to 973 was him poking me in the eye, so, maybe it's not all bad.
EricRobodox
25-02-2008, 02:05
Vanderway sometimes does that to people, doesnt actually hit them in the eye, but just enough so that the person flinches and puts on glasses.
Good luck to all teams in SVR, 599 wont be there but wishes everyone the best of luck.
eugenebrooks
25-02-2008, 02:34
Suppose one of these "eye poking" incidents "accidentally"
causes eye injury. What would be your plan then?
Eugene
LightWaves1636
25-02-2008, 02:45
I'm excited to see the whole competition in general. I've never been to a different regional besides the Colorado Regional, so I'm defiantly excited for the new atmosphere, and volunteering for the event is going to be fun.
AdamHeard
25-02-2008, 03:05
Suppose one of these "eye poking" incidents "accidentally"
causes eye injury. What would be your plan then?
Eugene
Your profile has you listed as both an engineer and a Dr.
So, I would really assume you are more mature than your latest post is revealing.
I don't know the word for it as his parents haven't told me, but he is very "special". His view of the world is far different than ours. So, cut him some slack.
What are you suggesting? Keep him from attending? Put him on a leash?
In case your wondering, my plan if that happened would be to apologize to the victim and do my best to explain the circumstances; can't really do any better than that.
Adam
Suppose one of these "eye poking" incidents "accidentally"
causes eye injury. What would be your plan then?
Eugene
To an extent, he can't tell right from wrong. Things that may seem simple to you it takes him a while to understand. He's "special." He is however, a hard worker and once you teach him something he can continue to do it, he knows more about machining then I do by a long stretch.
At competition everyone on the team knows to watch him and make sure he doesn't do something that normal society doesn't find acceptable, like poking people in the eyes. However, it only takes a couple seconds for something to happen and we can't be everywhere at once.
Every year I have seen him get better, and part of that is because of FIRST. Would you deny him the opportunity to learn in this great program just because he has a slight "defect" ? The fact that FIRST has helped him should say more about the nature of FIRST then anything.
So yes, he is allowed just like any other student to come to the regionals and participate like any other member of the team, and while we may have to put a little more effort into dealings between him and other teams, the benefit that he gets from FIRST is worth it. Maybe someday someone else with his disability will see that he's accepted and join a FIRST team. I only hope they get the same benefit from it that he does.
JaneYoung
25-02-2008, 11:39
Lucy,
It speaks volumes that teenagers on your team are working with your safety captain and helping him and each other develop as supportive and involved team mates, learning skills along the way.
In this society, tolerance and kindness are often lost in our day to day interactions - be they on the job or in school.
I understand Eugene's concern regarding the eye poking. It is a valid concern and it sounds like you are all aware of that as well. Continue to work with him regarding the safety aspects and responsibilities as your safety captain and with the team.
I'm sure your safety captain finds ways to show his appreciation for his team, working with his peers and mentors, and for FIRST.
Good luck this season 973 and everyone!
eugenebrooks
25-02-2008, 22:46
I suppose that my concern about someone's eyes being poked, with the potential for serious injury that could result, could be interpreted as lack of sensitivity on my part, but certainly not a lack of maturity.
I take eye safety very seriously. Faux poking can result in serious eye injury, an injury that we seek to avoid by requiring safety glasses in the pits and on the competition field.
One could take the view that a person who is not wearing safety glasses deserves to get his/her eyes injured, I do not. Anyone failing to wear the safety glasses deserves to be notified of the infraction and should be ejected from the pit if they fail to wear the safety glasses repeatedly. Getting poked in the eyes, for any reason, or by any person, is not acceptable and all required means should be used to prevent it.
If the person doing the poking is disabled, and therefore not responsible for their actions, I can understand that. If serious injury occurs, the responsible party may find that an apology is not sufficient, with the injured party seeking legal remedy. We can only hope that we remain lucky, and a serious injury does not occur.
I concur with Jane, every safe means should be offered to engage disabled people in our activity. I applaud this, but I do put the emphasis on the word safe.
Eugene
adengler
26-02-2008, 20:30
2090 "BuffnBlue" from Honolulu are stoked and ready to go. See you there!
As long as your safety captain knows how not to cause injury, and I assume he does, I don't see an issue here. Besides, I would much rather be poked in the eye, even if it hurt a little bit, then be hit in the eye with a piece of flying shrapnel.
eugenebrooks
11-03-2008, 00:11
To return to the original topic of this thread, Team 1280 will be
at the Silicon Valley regional. We have been using our fix-it
windows since Portland to tune up our software. There were a
few sensors on our robot in Portland that we were not using.
They will all be on line at Silicon Valley and we will be adding
one looking out the front. We will be throwing it into overdrive.
We will have the capability to reload the software into the IR
board in our pit, both for IR boards connected to 12 volts and
IR boards converted to 5 volt power by pulling the regulator and
soldering the bypass in. If yours gets corrupted drop by with it
and we can try to reload the software to get it going again.
Only a couple of days to go now, see you there!
Have fun,
Eugene
=Martin=Taylor=
11-03-2008, 00:29
W00t W00t! Two More DAYS!!!
We've increased our claw's speed, and improved our IR board and remote so we can actually run our hybrid modes.
GL everyone!
Guy Davidson
11-03-2008, 00:41
Indeed. We can't wait.
We used the fix-its to revamp our hybrid code, create a new button-board for our OI, and get some spare parts. We're ready for some Overdrive!
waiakea11
11-03-2008, 14:38
2024 is ready to head out...tomorrow actually. We've been ready since kickoff!!
115inventorsam
11-03-2008, 17:59
It's almost time!(41 hours til pits open!!:yikes:) We can't wait to take that 10-15 minute drive into downtown San Jose on Thursday morning and finally get El Toro XI into Overdrive!:D
Man, I can't wait to set my alarm at 6:00... for 3 straight days! :yikes: There's something wrong with me...
chaoticprout
12-03-2008, 00:42
Will SVR be webcast?
Thanks.
AdamHeard
12-03-2008, 00:45
Anyone know if sundial will be up? If so, is it just times or will it have standings as well?
Also, 973 will need some 10x24.5 Steel plate of varying thicknesses, if you have that, please stop by 973's Pit.
chaoticprout
12-03-2008, 00:57
Anyone know if sundial will be up? If so, is it just times or will it have standings as well?
We won't be down running sundial in SVR like in SD, but will be in LA and Hawaii. I'm not sure if anyone else is planning on running it at SVR.
115inventorsam
12-03-2008, 01:37
Will SVR be webcast?
Thanks.
SVR is on the list of events to be webcasted
Here is the list of regionals that were and will be webcasted(subject to change)
http://robotics.arc.nasa.gov/events/2008_frcwebcasts.php#webcasts
Edit: Oh, and regretfully, 115 does not have steel plates in stock. If no one can get you any, our suggestion would be to put wheels on a shaft if you have space(we did this in 2006).
AdamHeard
12-03-2008, 01:45
We won't be down running sundial in SVR like in SD, but will be in LA and Hawaii. I'm not sure if anyone else is planning on running it at SVR.
Okay, got a student working on it. We'll do our best to get sundial running for SVR.
Okay, got a student working on it. We'll do our best to get sundial running for SVR.
AKA: He dumped it on me.... :rolleyes:
Bomberofdoom
12-03-2008, 13:39
As always, Paly Robotics will be there. It will be great to see what 190 will have in store again, you guys always build amazing robots.
I'm cheering for you Palo Alto!
GO TEAM 8!!! :D
:)
254 is looking for any of the IGUS cable chain that was in the 2007 KOP (1"x0.5"). We mistakenly bought some that was much bigger, and the 2008 KOP contains smaller.
If any teams attending SVR are willing to part with their unused cable chain, that'd be great. We also have plenty of other unused KOP items we can trade with.
Thanks,
-Cory
danshaffer
12-03-2008, 19:38
Team 8 is looking for spare KoP globe motors, PM me or find me tomorrow in the pits if you have them and are looking to trade for something... we can get you lots of stuff next day at least.
Thanks!
254 is looking for any of the IGUS cable chain that was in the 2007 KOP (1"x0.5"). We mistakenly bought some that was much bigger, and the 2008 KOP contains smaller.
If any teams attending SVR are willing to part with their unused cable chain, that'd be great. We also have plenty of other unused KOP items we can trade with.
Thanks,
-Cory
I'm not sure if we still have ours, but if we do I will make sure our team brings it.
Guy Davidson
13-03-2008, 03:31
I'm cheering for you Palo Alto!
GO TEAM 8!!! :D
:)
Thanks :)
Sorry Cory, I believe our 2007 KoP chain broke somehow. We might have some in different sizes that we ordered this year - I'll see if I can find any of those tomorrow, and if I can, I'll bring them with us.
billbo911
13-03-2008, 14:03
WOW, nasty ground loop hum in the audio feed fron SVR!!!
Any chance someone can get this info to the broadcast crew?
Kevin Watson
13-03-2008, 16:49
WOW, nasty ground loop hum in the audio feed fron SVR!!!
Any chance someone can get this info to the broadcast crew?Yeah, pretty bad. I just spoke with someone there who will mention it to the audio guy.
-Kevin
Kevin Watson
13-03-2008, 17:25
WOW, nasty ground loop hum in the audio feed fron SVR!!!
Any chance someone can get this info to the broadcast crew?I'm in a meeting and can't watch the SVR webcast (at least with the audio on <grin>). Anyway, I just got a call from my contact at the SVR and he wants to know if it sound okay now. Can somone who's watching let me know if the sound is improved?
-Kevin
Vikesrock
13-03-2008, 17:36
I'm in a meeting and can't watch the SVR webcast (at least with the audio on <grin>). Anyway, I just got a call from my contact at the SVR and he wants to know if it sound okay now. Can somone who's watching let me know if the sound is improved?
-Kevin
I wasn't watching before, so I can't compare, but it seems to sound okay now for me.
The hum is gone, but the audio is a bit more "tin canny" than before/usual. High tremble/no bass.
Much better though.
Kevin Watson
13-03-2008, 18:13
I wasn't watching before, so I can't compare, but it seems to sound okay now for me.
The hum is gone, but the audio is a bit more "tin canny" than before/usual. High tremble/no bass.
Much better though.
Thanks. I let them know it's better.
-Kevin
Team 973 is still fighting with Sundial. Anyone who's used it before, specifically set it up before, if you could come talk to me / PM me I would appreciate it. I've only used Sundial once before, and I've never set it up before...
Woody1458
14-03-2008, 01:09
A lot of unfilled matches today! I geuss because its the first regional in the north california area its many teams first regional. I hope tomorrow we get more participants and less buggy robots. See you out there!
Ali Ahmed
14-03-2008, 12:40
Is anyone else getting a not so good quality webcast? Actually, it's really bad. It's not choppy but it's not clear.
I was getting a really nice feed for a while before I came to campus, now its really small and pixelated....
s_forbes
14-03-2008, 14:33
Did 190 just do what I think they did?!? If they get that thing working consistently... wow.
(for those of you that missed it, they just did a 2 second lap+hurdle of the ball)
David Brinza
14-03-2008, 15:01
Did 190 just do what I think they did?!? If they get that thing working consistently... wow.
(for those of you that missed it, they just did a 2 second lap+hurdle of the ball)A complete lap and a hurdle in 2 seconds? Is that possible? A 30 fps robot would be a blur...
Joe Ross
14-03-2008, 15:26
A complete lap and a hurdle in 2 seconds? Is that possible? A 30 fps robot would be a blur...
They swing the ball over the top of the barrier, leaving the base in one place.
David Brinza
14-03-2008, 16:52
They swing the ball over the top of the barrier, leaving the base in one place.
That's scary-clever.
I just saw a match with 190, but the video got scrambled at the key moment. So, after they swing the ball around the barrier and across the hurdle, they lower it to the ground and release it? If an opposing robot is unable to knock their Trackball away, do they just pick it up and swing it around again?
Joe Ross
14-03-2008, 16:56
That's scary-clever.
I just saw a practice match with 190, but the video got scrambled at the key moment. So, after they swing the ball around the barrier and across the hurdle, they lower it to the ground and release it? If an opposing robot is unable to knock their Trackball away, do they just pick it up and swing it around again?
That's correct. They have to release it before the ball hits the ground (per this Q/A: http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=8151). Sometimes, the ball gets away on its own, and sometimes someone knocks the ball away. I think the most they've done is 2 hurdles in a match.
That's scary-clever.
I just saw a practice match with 190, but the video got scrambled at the key moment. So, after they swing the ball around the barrier and across the hurdle, they lower it to the ground and release it? If an opposing robot is unable to knock their Trackball away, do they just pick it up and swing it around again?
Shouldn't they get a <G22> penalty each time they do this? Their arm definitely breaks the plane the of quadrant directly clockwise to them. I think that many teams would have ruled this strategy out during brainstorming, believing it to be a rule violation.
s_forbes
14-03-2008, 17:11
Shouldn't they get a <G22> penalty each time they do this? Their arm definitely breaks the plane the of quadrant directly clockwise to them. I think that many teams would have ruled this strategy out during brainstorming, believing it to be a rule violation.
I came to this conclusion too, they are definitely breaking the plane into the previous quadrant without ever leaving their home stretch. This should make for some interesting discussions...
Rick TYler
14-03-2008, 17:19
Shouldn't they get a <G22> penalty each time they do this? Their arm definitely breaks the plane the of quadrant directly clockwise to them. I think that many teams would have ruled this strategy out during brainstorming, believing it to be a rule violation.
I've also seem robots leaning on the overhead bars that seemed to bob back across the "plane of the line" even though the 'bot doesn't touch the floor back across the line. I definitely want to meet with the Seattle refs before the first match...
Joe Ross
14-03-2008, 17:23
Shouldn't they get a <G22> penalty each time they do this? Their arm definitely breaks the plane the of quadrant directly clockwise to them. I think that many teams would have ruled this strategy out during brainstorming, believing it to be a rule violation.
<G22> says you get a penalty for crossing the lane marker. The diagram on page 4 of section 6 shows the lane marker as the tape and calls the barrier the lane divider. 190 never crosses the lane marker, but does cross the lane divider. <G22> also specifies that the penalty occurs when you move clockwise across the marker. 190 always moves counter-clockwise.
The GDC did leave themselves an out in the Q/A response. We did not explicitly define a minimum "drop height" and hope it will not be necessary to do so. If 190 is successful this weekend, I wouldn't be surprised to see an update.
If the original <G36> was still in place, they would have violated that.
<G22> says you get a penalty for crossing the lane marker. The diagram on page 4 of section 6 shows the lane marker as the tape and calls the barrier the lane divider. 190 never crosses the lane marker, but does cross the lane divider.
A two-inch wide stripe of white gaffers tape extends down the center-line of the TRACK and under the LANE DIVIDER. This stripe is known as the “LANE MARKER.” The LANE MARKER divides the TRACK into two halves: the “Red Lane” and the “Blue Lane.”
So, according to the manual, the "Lane Marker" extends across the entire field, with the "Lane Divider" on top of it. So, 190 is crossing the "Lane Marker"
<G22> also specifies that the penalty occurs when you move clockwise across the marker. 190 always moves counter-clockwise.
I see what you're saying, but this would mean that a team who enters a quadrant then makes a CCW turn and breaks the plane of the previous quadrant should not be penalized. This definitely has not been the case at the events I've attended and watched.
/edit: The key is, they moved CW in relation to the quadrant they are in. Since they never fully leave their homestretch, any motion into their opponent's non homestretch would be a motion into a quadrant clockwise to their current quadrant.
David Brinza
14-03-2008, 17:35
Seems like <G22> is becoming the "thorn" rule for this year's game.
Of course, Team 190 is starting in it's home zone and the arm portion of the robot is sequentially crossing lines in a counter-clockwise direction. So, Team 190's actions may not be a clear-cut violation of <G22>.
Rick TYler
14-03-2008, 17:45
I just wanted to add that Team 100 roolz. I saw their 'bot in Oregon too. What a nice machine.
BHS_STopping
14-03-2008, 18:02
Keep in mind that the definitions of Clockwise and Counter-clockwise movement are actually different from one another:
CCW: A robot is moving counter-clockwise if it COMPLETELY crosses into the next quadrant in the counter-clockwise direction. In this case, the robot enters the next quadrant.
CW: A robot is moving clockwise if it PARTIALLY crosses into the previous quadrant in the clockwise direction. In this case, the robot enters the previous quadrant.
So, no matter what 190 does with their arm, they have not officially "Entered" any of the next quadrants until their entire robot is within the next quadrants. However, they do "Enter" the previous quadrant if any part of their robot extends into the previous quadrant. Therefore, the robot is always "in" its own quadrant until it partially crosses into the previous quadrant. At this point, it appears that their robot is officially "in" the previous quadrant.
The rule itself is pretty obscure, though, and I'd hate to see 190's strategy deemed illegal. I guess it's up to the GDC to decide...
No penalty for 190 in their last match, but I expect a ruling on that strategy soon. Someone is going to ask if it's legal.
artdutra04
14-03-2008, 19:57
For everyone who is wondering about the legality of Team 190's robot: another team (Team 2158) completely independent and several thousand miles away from Team 190 thought of the exact same strategy (a week after we did) and posted it to the FIRST Q&A in the third week of the build season.
It was deemed legal (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=8195). And our robot and strategy was again deemed legal at the BAE Granite State Regional in week one.
<G22> Direction Of Traffic – ROBOTS must proceed around the TRACK in a counter-clockwise
direction. Once a ROBOT has CROSSED a LANE MARKER or FINISH LINE, it shall not
break the plane of the line by moving in the clockwise direction. A PENALTY will be
assigned for each infraction.The highlight is mine.
The entire robot never fully crosses any lane markers; only part of it does. It's exactly the same legality as partially driving your robot across a lane marker and then backing up. You won't get a penality because you never fully left the previous quadrant.
sanddrag
14-03-2008, 20:01
Does anyone have a picture of the team 190 robot?
Speaking of 190, congrats on the xerox creativity award! :)
For the record, I now know how to defend 190. (Thank you GDC.)
artdutra04
14-03-2008, 21:19
For the record, I now know how to defend 190. (Thank you GDC.)For the record, the Q&A in the link above was not the final ruling on 190's robot. The subsequent ruling at BAE, which brought in all Q&A rulings and Team Updates up to that point, greatly expanded the extent to which 190's scoring maneuver was considered to be hurdling (and thus protected from interference). :)
For the record, the Q&A in the link above was not the final ruling on 190's robot. The subsequent ruling at BAE, which brought in all Q&A rulings and Team Updates up to that point, greatly expanded the extent to which 190's scoring maneuver was considered to be hurdling (and thus protected from interference). :)
That's what I was wondering when I read the Q&A response. You don't need to satisfy ALL the criteria of hurdling to be considered in the act of hurdling. You need only be in the homestretch and either moving towards the overpass or elevating the trackball (or both). I'd hope the intent is that you'd be protected while performing such an amazing feat. You could be nit-picky that the trackball is no longer rising upwards, and so the act of "elevating" has stopped, was that what the Q&A respondant was originally thinking?
I guess I'm still a little confused when the arm extends into the quadrant directly adjacent CW from the homestretch. Based on everything I've seen so far this year, I can't shake a G22 call there. The robot itself hasn't moved CCW into the other quadrants, regardless of the motion of the trackball. At some point, the robot is sitting there with a part of it projecting over the lane marker into the CW quadrant.
I'd like to see how this all plays out. A part of me thinks someone somewhere made a slip up one way or another. We're human. It happens. Hopefully it'll get sorted out if it isn't already.
Fred Sayre
14-03-2008, 21:46
This whole things feels kind of wrong to me. Don't misunderstand me, I congratulate all attempts at creativity and innovation in this competition.
This however feels like another tape measure of 2002. Seriously, this design very specifically and deliberately breaks rules. It does not follow the definition of a hurdle as defined in the rule book.
If given the choice? I would have the rule book reflect the Q&A, but that has to happen from the beginning, or with an official team update. I understand teams have to check the Q&A, but that is not the easiest thing to do, and when it directly conflicts with the existing (as of now) rulebook something is wrong. It almost feels like an abuse of the GDC bombarding them with all of the questions that would allow certain designs to slip through the rules when really, it should be obvious that the design breaks the rules.
Yeah, people may say, oh your just jealous blah blah blah, but really I think these kinds of ideas crossed many peoples minds after kickoff to learn that the rules limit some of those options.
There is a part of me that admires picking a design that is on the edge. It is a very risky and tough decision, and can set you apart from the crowd and pay off in the end. This situation however does not seem quite there - I think that if people made assumptions about how the Q&A response would be interpreted (and ignored the rulebook!) then we would see a huge number of very cool, creative machines that additional freedom would have allowed. These creative advantages I feel are not in line with what the GDC I think originally intended. (Not to say they discourage creativity:))
Do other people feel the same way? I am one of the people who will advocate pushing the rules more than I think most, but the consistency of the rules, updates and Q&A has me a bit worried.
Anyway, I didn't want to be overly negative in anyway, and maybe a discussion about this belongs somewhere else... but either way, I do want to congratulate 190 for standing up for their design and have fun playing with your unique machine!
sarcasticmadnes
14-03-2008, 21:47
as promised to some of you today, here are the rankings as of Friday night.
1. 100
2. 1280
3. 2024
4.192
5. 2473
6. 972
7. 670
8. 190
9. 581
10. 8
11. 2643
12. 1458
13. 766
14. 688
15. 115
16. 692
17. 846
18. 840
19. 1560
20. 1548
21. 971
22. 2141
23. 2035
24. 2629
25. 1516
26. 604
27. 675
28. 2628
29. 256
30. 1834
31. 2446
32. 2489
33. 2144
34. 973
35. 254
36. 649
37. 2090
38. 114
39. 1351
40. 2367
41. 1072
42. 253
43. 135
44. 2283
45. 1868
46. 1967
47. 2159
48. 1700
I apologize in advance for any typos. CONGRAGULATIONS TO ALL TEAMS WHO WON AN AWARD!
also if anyone's interested our scouts will have your stats from friday (today) electronically available for any teams that want it. (max points, max laps, etc.) tomorrow morning --> we're in the process of combining the data from the two laptops we used...we apologize for any inconvenience
Seriously, this design very specifically and deliberately breaks rules. It does not follow the definition of a hurdle as defined in the rule book.Which rules? And definition of Hurdle or Hurdling? (There is a difference.)
=Martin=Taylor=
14-03-2008, 22:22
For the record, I now know how to defend 190. (Thank you GDC.)
It’s possibly the easiest robot to defend against ever.... They can score 1 hurdle EXTREMLY fast. But they always lose control of the ball after it is dropped. All you have to do is bump the ball about a foot and they will never be able to get it again. The suction cup is swings around too much to capture a rolling object.
However, this is one of those robots that makes you say “Wow….” and leaves you standing with your mouth gaping open. It is just simply amazing, both in terms of sheer size and engineering. The fact that a team actually pulled off such a strategy amazes me…
On another note, 254 is on the brink of being disqualified. Very strange indeed....
On another note, 254 is on the brink of being disqualified. Very strange indeed....Word on Gameday was that they had the yellow for high-speed ramming. Is that true?
Nuttyman54
14-03-2008, 22:42
Word on Gameday was that they had the yellow for high-speed ramming. Is that true?
Yes, they hit 1280 very hard and tipped them immediately. From what I can tell, it wasn't intentional, but it was the obvious call.
For those of you wondering about Team 190's legality, we've run the entire strategy and design by the GDC members and the head refs at both of our events, and we were cleared both times. We will be extremely upset if a rule update is made following SVR that disallows us after having been told we were perfectly legal at both regionals.
waialua359
14-03-2008, 23:01
you never know.
rule interpretations vary from regional to regional, week to week. We clearly saw very distinct and clear DIFFERENT robot inspection and rule interpretations between the two regionals we attended.
For example, one ungracious comment we were told from one inspector was "I dont care what the VCU inspectors said, this isn't VCU."
I dont think its wrong to question any official gracefully about consistency among rules. All teams want is consistency in trying to have a great learning experience.
After what you folks went through, this shouldn't be an issue anymore now or in the future.
Today, I received a penalty for "hurdler interference" when I bumped team 190's robot while they were in the middle of their overhead ball circle. I know that the Q&A is not the final official word on rules, but I'm curious to see what the exact ruling on 190's protection while hurdling is. Though it probably will not change how I drive tomorrow, I would still like to know.
On the other hand, it seems like 254 finished building their robot in the afternoon and are now winning their matches, like usual.
Word on Gameday was that they had the yellow for high-speed ramming. Is that true?
We rounded the lane divider and accidentally clipped 1280 with a trackball in our possession as they were beginning to raise their elevator, and unfortunately they fell over.
eugenebrooks
14-03-2008, 23:36
It was an unfortunate accident, these things happen.
Eugene
We rounded the lane divider and accidentally clipped 1280 with a trackball in our possession as they were beginning to raise their elevator, and unfortunately they fell over.
Cory,
You may recall 987 found themselves in same situation last week and made it through 3-4 matches with yellow to finish seeded #1...hang in there and good luck tomorrow...
Francis-134
15-03-2008, 00:11
Team 190 hopes to soon post a link to our "Handy Dandy Rules Reference" that we have shown to various referees, judges, and members of the GDC.
The Lucas
15-03-2008, 00:40
The entire robot never fully crosses any lane markers; only part of it does. It's exactly the same legality as partially driving your robot across a lane marker and then backing up. You won't get a penality because you never fully left the previous quadrant.
Forgive me if I'm missing something (I haven't actually seen it but I hope to tomorrow), but how does 190 retract this hurdling mechanism without moving it in a clockwise direction, particularly with respect to the opposing finish line(which they have already CROSSED)? I would imagine that even after dropping the ball, the mechanism would relax in a clockwise motion across the opposing finish line thus breaking <G22>. Am I making sense, because this is something I thought about before but never tried to communicate?
Woody1458
15-03-2008, 00:45
I just got home from the competition and just wanted to congradulate all award winners
List from top of my head
Woodie Flowers - Mentor of Apes of Wrath
Xerox creativity - WPI 190 with the ever-debated rotator (obvious)
Design - 1280 (awsome pit)
Website - MVRT 115 http://www.mvrt.com/2008/clear.php
Theese teams won awards but I forgot which one got which
Alaska team (forgot name/number Sorry!)
Funky Monkies
TKO
GRT 192 (The award for cool robot gizmos that you can explain in conciese terms)
I forgot who won volunteer (Sorry!)
Great competitions out there. Alliance selections are going to be very interesting, as a lot of great robot teams are in the lower rankings (254 is 35th, 114 is 38th etc). Oh and just my callouts to interesting things I saw...
I liked 973's method of ball removal
2144 pulled of the counterfacing omnis (looks like <> from underside) spectacularly
254 didn't show up to some of matches today! Why Cory?
1280's pit was awsome, being right next to it was..... humbling
Apparently there was a fire on the field while I was in the pits! I always miss the good stuff... (Sorry to the team who it happend to)
Not much as far as hybrid, I didn't see much as far as knoking balls off.
BTW - As pit captain I'm sure there was a lot of cool stuff that happend that I didn't see, so don't hate If I missed you!
Forgive me if I'm missing something (I haven't actually seen it but I hope to tomorrow), but how does 190 retract this hurdling mechanism without moving it in a clockwise direction, particularly with respect to the opposing finish line(which they have already CROSSED)? I would imagine that even after dropping the ball, the mechanism would relax in a clockwise motion across the opposing finish line thus breaking <G22>. Am I making sense, because this is something I thought about before but never tried to communicate? I'm not sure what exactly you're picturing, but once 190 releases the ball, they just immediately pick it up again without moving anything in a clockwise direction. When "relaxing" their mechanism, they are in their own home stretch and the mechanism is in their own area after the home stretch. Or am I not getting you?
Woody1458
15-03-2008, 00:51
1458 is pumped for SV as our first regional. I always love that San Jose weather!
so much for the weather......
Nuttyman54
15-03-2008, 01:23
Forgive me if I'm missing something (I haven't actually seen it but I hope to tomorrow), but how does 190 retract this hurdling mechanism without moving it in a clockwise direction, particularly with respect to the opposing finish line(which they have already CROSSED)? I would imagine that even after dropping the ball, the mechanism would relax in a clockwise motion across the opposing finish line thus breaking <G22>. Am I making sense, because this is something I thought about before but never tried to communicate?
We have two electrical slip-rings in our turret that allow us to do an infinite number of rotations without ever having to go in reverse. The turret should never move in a clockwise direction, with the possible exception while placing the ball on our overpass in the endgame.
ReaperGoat
15-03-2008, 01:38
We have two electrical slip-rings in our turret that allow us to do an infinite number of rotations without ever having to go in reverse. The turret should never move in a clockwise direction, with the possible exception while placing the ball on our overpass in the endgame.
the slip rings are pretty intense:cool: ...is 190 going to do anything about keeping the ball from rolling forward after the quick drop?
s_forbes
15-03-2008, 01:57
the slip rings are pretty intense:cool: ...is 190 going to do anything about keeping the ball from rolling forward after the quick drop?
I would think that coordinated alliance partners would be a good solution to this. It seemed that every time they dropped and it rolled away, their alliance partners just kept running laps and minding their own business. I'm sure that strategy will change in the eliminations.
shock190
15-03-2008, 01:57
the slip rings are pretty intense:cool: ...is 190 going to do anything about keeping the ball from rolling forward after the quick drop?
Yes, the reason we have been struggling with that is that the proper extension position for the drop is not set yet. When it is in the proper position, it drops right into the grasp of our blocking arm, which pins it against the lane divider as soon as the ball hits the ground, both getting it stable to be grabbed again by the suction cup, and to keep other robots from knocking it away. This problem should be resolved sometime tomorrow morning however. Most of our problems at the moment are in the same area, missing sensor values. Once this thing gets some more testing time under its belt, we'll be much, much faster.
254 didn't show up to some of matches today! Why Cory?
Do you literally mean not show up? I had to leave for an hour and a half to go to a class this morning, but as far as I know we were on the field for every single one of our matches.
If by "show up" you mean perform, then yes, we didn't show up for some of our matches. We had to chase some gremlins that made their way into the bot during assembly yesterday. We passed inspection literally one minute before our first match, so we had no time to test anything.
Our drivers are starting to get more comfortable with the speed the game is being played at, so hopefully we'll do much better tomorrow.
Woody1458
15-03-2008, 02:23
Do you literally mean not show up? I had to leave for an hour and a half to go to a class this morning, but as far as I know we were on the field for every single one of our matches.
If by "show up" you mean perform, then yes, we didn't show up for some of our matches. We had to chase some gremlins that made their way into the bot during assembly yesterday. We passed inspection literally one minute before our first match, so we had no time to test anything.
Our drivers are starting to get more comfortable with the speed the game is being played at, so hopefully we'll do much better tomorrow.
Yea, being in the pit nearly all of the day most of my info is by word of mouth, I geuss i was told 254 didn't compete in _____ match, and took that as didn't put their robot on the field. And I can't wait for the issues to be resolved, I loved seing the videos of 968 in San Diego and was/am excited to see the design in person.
Fred Sayre
15-03-2008, 02:48
Which rules? And definition of Hurdle or Hurdling? (There is a difference.)
HURDLE: When a TRACKBALL CROSSES a FINISH LINE while passing above the OVERPASS
and then contacts either the floor or another ROBOT before re-contacting the originating ROBOT.
So the ball crosses the finish line, but is still touching the machine which does not meet this definition of a hurdle. This definition indicates that at least the machine has to lose contact with the ball before the ball has completely crosses the finish line.
Also an interesting issue comes from the crossing/crossed issue.
CROSSING: The act of a TRACKBALL or ROBOT passing through the plane defined by a line (i.e.
LANE MARKER or FINISH LINE) when it is projected vertically upwards. A TRACKBALL or
ROBOT shall have CROSSED a line when all parts of the object, while traveling in a counterclockwise
direction, have completely passed through the plane.
So I understand how the robot can still be "Crossing" into the next zones, but how does it not violate G22 crossing into the zone just previous to the machine? The machine is considered to have crossed that line for the purposes of the start of the match, and since it has not completely crossed into any zone except its home zone, breaking the plane into the previous zone should be a G22 violation.
The Lucas
15-03-2008, 03:52
We have two electrical slip-rings in our turret that allow us to do an infinite number of rotations without ever having to go in reverse. The turret should never move in a clockwise direction, with the possible exception while placing the ball on our overpass in the endgame.
I was picturing it wrapping around the barrier, I now really want to see this thing.
Paul Copioli
15-03-2008, 05:48
I am amazed that the refs allowed this at BAE. It is a clear violation of G22. You're entire robot is in the home stretch then part of your robot goes into the previous quadrant without your robot ever leaving the home stretch.
CCW and CW are relative to the field, not the robot. The turret moving CCW with respect to the robot has nothing to do with going CCW on the field. It is the same thing as a robot going into the home stretch, then spinning CCW and breaking the plane.
I am baffled as to how the rule can be distorted to make this legal.
rsilverstein
15-03-2008, 05:59
Does anyone have a video of them in action?
Paul Copioli
15-03-2008, 06:08
Can someone point me to the actual Q & A that was asked? The only one I found was the question regarding dropping the trackball. By the way, the GDC made it clear in that response that their intent was that the ball would be dropped from approximately the height of the overpass. If 190 is dropping it from just above the ground, then I would so much as say they are "lawyering" the rules because the GDC made their intent clear in the Q & A response.
Nuttyman54
15-03-2008, 09:58
Can someone point me to the actual Q & A that was asked? The only one I found was the question regarding dropping the trackball. By the way, the GDC made it clear in that response that their intent was that the ball would be dropped from approximately the height of the overpass. If 190 is dropping it from just above the ground, then I would so much as say they are "lawyering" the rules because the GDC made their intent clear in the Q & A response.
The Q&A is here (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=8195&highlight=2158)
Ty Tremblay
15-03-2008, 10:08
HURDLE: When a TRACKBALL CROSSES a FINISH LINE while passing above the OVERPASS
and then contacts either the floor or another ROBOT before re-contacting the originating ROBOT.
So the ball crosses the finish line, but is still touching the machine which does not meet this definition of a hurdle. This definition indicates that at least the machine has to lose contact with the ball before the ball has completely crosses the finish line.
The ball can be in contact with the originating robot while it is crossing the finish line. If you look closely at the wording, the only conditions for a hurdle are that the ball contacts either the ground or another robot before contacting the originating robot. Thus, 190 remains in contact with the ball over the finish line (legal) and lowers it to a manageable height (legal), releases the ball (completing one hurdle), and re-raises the ball so that the turret can then bring the ball completely across the opponents finish line ("resetting" the ball). Rinse and repeat.
/Edit: Also, according to the referees at BAE, 190 is protected under <G42> during a very significant amount of this maneuver (>60%)
Michael DiRamio
15-03-2008, 10:12
At what height is 190 dropping the ball from? (I haven't seen any video)
This (http://forums.usfirst.org/showthread.php?t=8151) Q & A would imply that they would need to drop the ball from the height of the overpass.
Fred Sayre
15-03-2008, 11:41
The ball can be in contact with the originating robot while it is crossing the finish line. If you look closely at the wording, the only conditions for a hurdle are that the ball contacts either the ground or another robot before contacting the originating robot. Thus, 190 remains in contact with the ball over the finish line (legal) and lowers it to a manageable height (legal), releases the ball (completing one hurdle), and re-raises the ball so that the turret can then bring the ball completely across the opponents finish line ("resetting" the ball). Rinse and repeat.
/Edit: Also, according to the referees at BAE, 190 is protected under <G42> during a very significant amount of this maneuver (>60%)
The wording of the rule indicates that contact would be lost before the ball finishes crossing the finish line. The original intent of hurdling was to be a bonus for completing the same task as herding but over the overpass which would not suggest carrying the ball over and at some arbitrary time letting go and recapturing the ball.
The rule says the ball crosses the finish line and then before contacting the originating robot (too late! it is still in contact with the originating robot!) the ball must touch the ground or another machine. The order seems pretty clear to me. I don't see how this rule would suggest you can carry the ball over, and at some completely arbitrary time (or height?!) lose contact with the ball.
And to clarify, yes the ball can be in contact with the machine WHILE the ball is crossing the finish line. But not in between when it has CROSSED, and before it touches the ground or another machine.
Rick TYler
15-03-2008, 11:42
(Rules quote)HURDLE: When a TRACKBALL CROSSES a FINISH LINE while passing above the OVERPASS and then contacts either the floor or another ROBOT before re-contacting the originating ROBOT.
(Fred wrote)
So the ball crosses the finish line, but is still touching the machine which does not meet this definition of a hurdle. This definition indicates that at least the machine has to lose contact with the ball before the ball has completely crosses the finish line.
I think, Fred, that with this interpretation any time a robot mechanism extends over the finish line during hurdling, the hurdle wouldn't count. Based on observations in Oregon and in watching Peachtree and San Jose on webcasts, a fair number of the hurdling robots would be disqualified, as their mechanisms are still touching the ball after the ball has passed the plane of the finish line. I would definitely want this clarified before Seattle -- there are a lot more robots that would be affected by this than just 190.
Fred Sayre
15-03-2008, 12:18
I think, Fred, that with this interpretation any time a robot mechanism extends over the finish line during hurdling, the hurdle wouldn't count. Based on observations in Oregon and in watching Peachtree and San Jose on webcasts, a fair number of the hurdling robots would be disqualified, as their mechanisms are still touching the ball after the ball has passed the plane of the finish line. I would definitely want this clarified before Seattle -- there are a lot more robots that would be affected by this than just 190.
I see what you are saying. I still think crossing the finish line with your machine is fine, but you could say the rule dictates that you don't touch the ball while it is crossing, and so as soon as it breaks the plane... and I think that might be the original intent of the rules. Certainly though, carrying the ball completely past the overpass was not though. Yeah, it needs to get resolved - hopefully in a team update after this weekend.
On re-reading the rules though, it seems like the def. of hurdle seems to indicate an order of events, crossing and then touching the ground or another machine. That means to me that until it is finished crossing the robot can be in possession.
chaoticprout
15-03-2008, 14:54
1) 100 - 254 - 115
2) 2024 - 192 - 8
3) 2473 - 1280 - 2643
4) 190 - 2141 - 2144
5) 846 - 2035 - 972
6) 670 - 668 - 2090
7) 1834 - 973 - 971
8) 692 - 604 - 766
David Brinza
15-03-2008, 18:13
Looks like a hot final:
#1 (100, 254, 115) vs #2 (8, 192, 2024).
A Woodside/Poofs alliance won CalGames last fall. I expect a fast and furious finals. Just about to start...
Kevin Sevcik
15-03-2008, 19:02
So who's writing the Q&A about that blatant incredibly basic scoring mistake by the refs in the final match?
chaoticprout
15-03-2008, 19:03
Never mind, they're playing another match.
Rick TYler
15-03-2008, 19:03
????
What was that call on the bonus ball? Blue had the ball scored, and then a red robot partially lifted it trying to descore, and they don't count the bonus for blue because the ball is touched (and a little supported) by a red robot? So, all you have to do is be in contact at the end to descore? Without going and looking at the rules, I think blue was ripped off.
Has blue filed a protest yet?
thats what I was thinking.... shouldn't that blue capped ball counted??
Ken Streeter
15-03-2008, 19:05
So who's writing the Q&A about that blatant incredibly basic scoring mistake by the refs in the final match?I've noticed that they have been making that mistake regarding G14 (not scoring trackballs remaining on the overpass which have been partially supported by robots of the *opposing* alliance) all day!
Hmm, they just announced that they are going to play another match -- I wonder if it is a reversal of the G14 scoring problem. (I saw it happen in at least two other matches today.)
Meredith Novak
15-03-2008, 19:05
So who's writing the Q&A about that blatant incredibly basic scoring mistake by the refs in the final match?
Is that descoring of the 12 points for blue correct because the red robot was touching it??? That makes eliminating the 12 point bonus a lot easier. My drive team is confused...as am I. Now they say they are playing another match - HUH???
Pavan Dave
15-03-2008, 19:05
<G14>When the MATCH ends, each TRACKBALL that is at least partially supported by the
OVERPASS and not in contact with any ROBOT of the same ALLIANCE will earn a 12-point
bonus. If a TRACKBALL is in unrestrained motion (i.e. not in contact with another ROBOT)
when the clock reaches zero, its contribution to the score will be based on when it comes to
rest.
??? That is a blue win. This isn't good... A "tie breaker" rematch ???
I think the test next year needs to be harder...Can someone please explain why the manual wasn't followed?
Rick TYler
15-03-2008, 19:07
The worst referee decision I've seen in FIRST. Wow. A "do over"? Is this a third-grade recess? How about this, "We made a mistake. Blue wins."
I feel sorry for Mark that he has to sound supportive of this decision.
EDITED: Having been a Little League umpire, I have immense sympathies for the referees. This same thing happened a couple of times the last day in Oregon, but there the refs called the ball as scored. Sorry for the harsh comments, refs, but this shouldn't have happened like this. Blue won.
thefro526
15-03-2008, 19:12
All I know is, there is no way that they should have called a do over. It should have been a win for blue. Regardless I dub that call as hacks, but w/e more matches = better.
But then again, refs are people to and they have the right to be wrong, but that's one heck of a time to be wrong
All I know is, there is no way that they should have called a do over. It should have been a win for blue. Regardless I dub that call as hacks, but w/e more matches = better.There was a similar match in L.A. finals, 2006. They replayed that one.
David Brinza
15-03-2008, 19:14
Wow!
Red won a close first match. Penalties were a big factor in the last two matches: a <G22> (zone incursion) penalty against Red swung the outcome of Final Match 2 and a <G42> (hurdling interference) on the Blue alliance called in Match 3 apparently swung that match in favor of Red. But then - chaos!
The penalty in the final was strongly contested and an announcement made that the penalty was rescinded. But then the referee announced that the final match would be replayed because of misinterpretation of the rule involving the supported Blue ball by a Red robot.
I don't understand why the match just doesn't go to Blue. Count the bonus Trackball and even if the Blue penalty is enforced, Blue wins!!
Woody1458
15-03-2008, 19:18
UPDATE FROM THE FIELD:
too much contraversy over blue ball refs decide to call it a tie redoing last match more to come
Stephi Rae
15-03-2008, 19:18
Unfortunately, if Team 100 had missed "over" the overpass in match two instead of coming backwards, they would have won by two points and none of this would have happened... we saw this many times in Team 100's play in Oregon... In my opinion, another hurdle and crossing your finish line is sometimes the best you can do with a robot not necessarily designed to specifically place the ball...
well... good luck to both alliances...
Brandon Holley
15-03-2008, 19:18
i love team 254 and think they are a great role model for teams, and i love team 100 and everything they do
with that said its unfortunate to see horrible refereeing cause so much turmoil among who should have won SVR. ALL the teams put up a hard nosed effort, and even tho the refereeing was horrid, the refs did the right thing by keeping the horrid calls consistent in the end and giving the 4th match.
254, 100 and 115 deserve the win just as much as anyone else and kudos to them!
XaulZan11
15-03-2008, 19:21
I didn't see it but this sounds very similar to what happened in the finals on Curie last year. After the blue alliance (330, 910 and 1523 (?) won the first match, the red alliance (1732, 67, 48) appeared to have won the 2nd. But, one of the referees thought blue had one more tube on the rack that was not counted. Although that one blue tube would have not decided the match, the entire match was replayed and the blue alliance won.
Pavan Dave
15-03-2008, 19:24
*jokes*
Guys, wait, were having a match number 5!!!!!!
*/jokes*
UPDATE FROM THE FIELD:
too much contraversy over blue ball refs decide to call it a tie redoing last match more to come
Is that a reason to deny someone a win?? Is that enough ground to say, "we don't care what happened on the field, lets do a do-over!"? ... I'm sure the Patriots would have loved that call?
chaoticprout
15-03-2008, 19:24
Before the end of match 3, I was rooting for the red alliance. Afterwards, considering the blue alliance won, I rooted for them. I think this win is just....wrong.
Edit: Not putting a wrong in the hands of the red.
Kingofl337
15-03-2008, 19:24
:(
Brandon Holley
15-03-2008, 19:24
congrats to 100, 254 and 115 on winning the regional
blue alliance you put on a great show, sometimes rulings go your way, and sometimes they cost you a regional
tyron256
15-03-2008, 19:27
well, it was an unusual ending to this regional, unfortunately it was at blue's expense. good show and congrats to the winners
Danny McC
15-03-2008, 19:31
Blue got cheated. That's all.
thefro526
15-03-2008, 19:33
After seeing this final match, I am rather upset. I understand the refs are human and make mistakes but, In my opinion blue was just conned out of a regional win. The red alliance was good but blue deserved to win after the third match. The inconsistency of refs from regional to regional needs to stop. Any other regional would have called it as blue winning.
Btw, this is not a post trying to bash the refs, I am just fed up with inconsistency's from event to event. And this misunderstanding of the rules has just cost 3 teams a regional win.
David Brinza
15-03-2008, 19:37
Not a good day for FIRST at SVR.
I'm afraid the finals controversy will overshadow what this event is supposed to be - a celebration of accomplishment for all of the teams at the event.
Field-side decisions are taking away from the purity of competition. FIRST should be able to rationally resolve the outcome of the match based on what occurs on the field. If an end-game rule is misinterpreted i.e. <G14>, the error should be corrected and the final score should reflect the correct application of the rule.
Unless further explanation can be offered, I just don't see "do-over" as the proper resolution of this situation.
Meredith Novak
15-03-2008, 19:41
It's not just a Regional win, it's a ticket to Atlanta for some of these teams. Maybe they should give it to all 6 and call it done. No one is going to feel right about "winning" this, even if they did another do-over...:(
thefro526
15-03-2008, 19:47
It's not just a Regional win, it's a ticket to Atlanta for some of these teams. Maybe they should give it to all 6 and call it done. No one is going to feel right about "winning" this, even if they did another do-over...:(
I think that this may be the saddest part of this lose for blue. :(
ARcanUSNUMquam
15-03-2008, 19:52
I'm watching the webcast and I didn't see Woz in the colinear arrangement of judges. Anybody know where he went? Or are my eyes deceiving me?
mark johnson
15-03-2008, 21:15
DEFENSE IS A PART OF THIS GAME!!!!! Going into this match I didnt give you guys even a slight chance . But was I ever wrong,your team changed its game plan after the first match and shut down the POOFS, that won you that match.The plan worked again , but I didnt understand that final call on the bonus ball. Your alliance (2024 ,192,8) lost the in the finals but you still should feel like champions for your fine preformance!!!!!!! Congrats to (100,254 115)for winning the regional,you cant take it away from you because of a bad call so enjoy the victory!!Remember the refs are human just like the rest of us,hopefully we all will learn from this. On a previous post by XAULZAN11 said in the Currie finals that (1732.67,48) had beaten (330 910 1523) in the second match . It wasnt 1523 it was 1270 who in turn got DQed on Einstien for tipping Beatty 71 while battling for the same ring ,another bad call but we had to accept it and move on to next match. GOOD LUCK to all of you the rest of the year.
pakratt1991
15-03-2008, 21:51
well unfortunately I was working on my own projects and while I watched most of the matches yesterday I missed the finals today =[ From what I hear it was a GREAT SHOW! Having been screwed by the refs before in competition I know how it feels. While I have much respect for 254 and 100, from what I hear the large trophies should have gone the other way. but I CAN'T WAIT FOR THESE TO BE ON THE BLUE ALLIANCE! HURRY!!! !:yikes:
DEFENSE IS A PART OF THIS GAME!!!!! Going into this match I didnt give you guys even a slight chance . But was I ever wrong,your team changed its game plan after the first match and shut down the POOFS, that won you that match.The plan worked again , but I didnt understand that final call on the bonus ball. Your alliance (2024 ,192,8) lost the in the finals but you still should feel like champions for your fine preformance!!!!!!! Congrats to (100,254 115)for winning the regional,you cant take it away from you because of a bad call so enjoy the victory!!Remember the refs are human just like the rest of us,hopefully we all will learn from this. On a previous post by XAULZAN11 said in the Currie finals that (1732.67,48) had beaten (330 910 1523) in the second match . It wasnt 1523 it was 1270 who in turn got DQed on Einstien for tipping Beatty 71 while battling for the same ring ,another bad call but we had to accept it and move on to next match. GOOD LUCK to all of you the rest of the year.Indeed. 8's defense was brilliant, and nearly won them the fourth match. Of course, it helps that the refs were not calling impeding at all, but this is taking nothing away from 8-for one, that rule would not have affected them most of the time, and recognizing the conditions is always a key part of any sport. In match 4, both red balls were in the same place (one flat, which was not replaced for a rather long time), and 8 just waited behind them, which almost worked. Congrats, and congrats to everyone else as well! Even though my team didn't do so well, the matches made it fun for everyone.
Daniel Bathgate
15-03-2008, 23:44
2144 pulled of the counterfacing omnis (looks like <> from underside) spectacularly
Why thank you! We're quite proud of our drivetrain this year. The biggest problem we've had was our AndyMark Coolie Dualie wheels bending when they hit the plates on the inside of the field. We're going to try out their plastic omni wheels at Davis to see if they'll work better for us. Now that some small but killer code related problems are worked out, things should be looking good. Note: Don't put your radio next to the drive motors! Horrible packet loss causes for problems to appear on the field and not in the pits, driving the programmer batty when trying to troubleshoot.
A big thanks to 190 for picking us for the finals! Those quarterfinals were a lot of fun, and together with 2141 we put on quite a good fight.
Lastly, I'm not sure what to think of the finals. We love you 100, 254, and 115, but in my opinion the regional should have gone to blue. I was one of the people who ran (erm, walked quickly) back to our pits to grab a copy of the rules and bring them up to the refs. (Yes, I know people not on the alliance shouldn't contest and are probably just getting in the way, but it was heat of the moment, and come on! That rule isn't even one of the debated ones!) Then with 254's ball and field damage... Anyways, those were two amazing alliances and it's a shame they can't both go to Atlanta. Or as Meredith suggested, could they? I would be in full support of advancing both alliances as a resolution!
SVR had a rough start and a rough ending. Our alliance had a score of 9 before penalties for our first qualification match (match number 3), initially losing 4 to 0. It was pretty easy to contest an odd score, but counting laps as 1 point each is a fairly huge mistake. I'm surprised the software even let that score be input. Scoring and penalty issues aside, which seem to be as much an issue with this game as with our regional in particular, SVR was a load of fun with great competition.
Congrats to team 2643, Gunderson High School, for reaching semifinals your rookie year! Awesome job! Team 604 is proud of you guys!
David Brinza
15-03-2008, 23:51
Indeed. 8's defense was brilliant, and nearly won them the fourth match. Of course, it helps that the refs were not calling impeding at all, but this is taking nothing away from 8-for one, that rule would not have affected them most of the time, and recognizing the conditions is always a key part of any sport. In match 4, both red balls were in the same place (one flat, which was not replaced for a rather long time), and 8 just waited behind them, which almost worked. Congrats, and congrats to everyone else as well! Even though my team didn't do so well, the matches made it fun for everyone.
To be clear, impeding has a specific meaning and only refers to robot traffic around the track. If Team 8 denies the Red alliance access to their Trackball, they're not necessarily guilty of impeding per <G40>. The occasions where their robot maneuvered in front of an opposing robot is risky and creates judgment calls for the ref's (regarding passing lanes, etc.). Just note that the definition of IMPEDING makes no mention of Trackballs:
IMPEDING: Preventing or obstructing an opposing ROBOT’S ability to proceed around the TRACK in the direction of traffic.
No team should assume that they have the right of unabated access to their Trackballs during a match. Some teams exercise strategies and tactics that make it very difficult for their opponents to gain control of their own Trackballs. I thought Team 8 did that effectively in those matches. In my opinion, their play was legal defense - pure and simple.
I was in our pits most of the time but I have a few things to say about everything.
Team 8: Wow, I never would've guessed a team could pull off defense like that amazing job. Keep pressuring FIRST on getting to ATL, I overheard you talking to Jim Beck and I hope that FIRST allows you in. Refer to one of the many threads like this and you may just get your ticket to ATL.
Entire #2 alliance: AMAZING right after alliances got picked we assumed a landslide victory for the #1 alliance, you proved us wrong and did great.
Refs: Kept up the consistency throughout all matches, and did a good job the whole time, I have heard people blaming the finals on the refs, all they were trying to do is hold up consistency
190: Good design, I have heard people talking about how it's unfair. Way to think outside the box.
254: Everyone was a little sketchy on if one of their leading competitors would be DQed or only at half functionality. Great work done in the pits.
2024: I loved your team spirit and everything about your team.
These are all my thoughts and things that jumped out at me.
If anyone has pictures of team 1458's robot could you please email them to me? Ramones.rock@gmail.com
To be clear, impeding has a specific meaning and only refers to robot traffic around the track. If Team 8 denies the Red alliance access to their Trackball, they're not necessarily guilty of impeding per <G40>. The occasions where their robot maneuvered in front of an opposing robot is risky and creates judgment calls for the ref's (regarding passing lanes, etc.). Just note that the definition of IMPEDING makes no mention of Trackballs:
IMPEDING: Preventing or obstructing an opposing ROBOT’S ability to proceed around the TRACK in the direction of traffic.
No team should assume that they have the right of unabated access to their Trackballs during a match. Some teams exercise strategies and tactics that make it very difficult for their opponents to gain control of their own Trackballs. I thought Team 8 did that effectively in those matches. In my opinion, their play was legal defense - pure and simple.
I don't disagree with you, but some of 8's other moves should have, in my opinion, at least warranted a count, but they were few and far between here. Again, the refs seemed to be going more for consistency than a literal interpretation of the rules.
eugenebrooks
16-03-2008, 00:18
The consistency of incorrect enforcement of G14 in SVR-F3 was most certainly a foolish one if it was maintained after a correct interpretation of the rule had been arrived at.
Referees have re-issued match decisions after consultations with the rules before, and this is one of those places where a change would have been appropo, instead of a replay.
No QandA is required on this issue, the plain English of G14 is clear and it should be interpreted correctly at future regionals. I am sure it will be given the attention that has been called to the rule.
With that said, the decisions of the head referee are final.
This is the overriding rule that applies in this case.
I would like to suggest that words like "screwed," "conned," "cheated," etc... , should not be getting used in this discussion. The mistake was an honest one made by volunteers who are doing their best to be fair with the teams and adherent to the rules. We should recognize it as the honest mistake that it was.
Eugene
=Martin=Taylor=
16-03-2008, 00:45
This whole game is terrible...
I hate it more and more each time we play it.... Its entirely decided by penalties. You can't tell who's winning. The rules are ambiguous and are poorly enforced....
I'm glad 2024 qualified for Atlanta. They truly deserve it. I hope team 8 will make it too... (This was team 192's last regional)
I think we made a lot of enemies today, even though we did nothing to anyone... :( I'd like to say sorry to alliance #2, and would hope that our teams continue to work together and help each other out.
Kevin Sevcik
16-03-2008, 00:45
Eugene,
Watching the webcast of the regional, Jim Beck was very clearly called for consultation on the issue. Between the RD and the FIRST Technical Adviser and other FRC officials available by phone, there should have been plenty of non-volunteer help available to help with the decision.
I think we made a lot of enemies today, even though we did nothing to anyone... :( I'd like to say sorry to alliance #2, and would hope that our teams continue to work together and help each other out.
I should think nobody holds it against any team on your alliance. You were put in just as awkward a situation as your opponents were and what happened is definitely not the fault of your alliance whatsoever.
We were on the losing end of a similar situation in 2005. These things happen - life goes on. If you made any enemies as a result, then they don't get the point of GP.
Rick TYler
16-03-2008, 00:57
I think we made a lot of enemies today, even though we did nothing to anyone...
Absolutely untrue. You and the rest of your alliance played the game, and played it well. Even if the blue alliance would have won, it would have been in 2 out 3 final, and would have been decided by two points (IIRC, two points). Everyone who matters knows that it was your hard work and ingenuity that earned you the right to be in the finals, and that if there was an incorrect ruling that gave you the victory, that it wasn't your choice. You, like all teams, rely on the officials running the tournament for rules interpretation and enforcement. You played the game and at the end of the day the score said you won.
I had the privilege of watching you in person at Portland and today on the Webcast. Your drivers are smooth and professional, I've never seen you mug another robot illegally, and your scoring is impressive. You may feel like you didn't deserve to win, but you definitely deserve to feel good about what you did in this event. It was an impressive achievement.
No one hates you!
eugenebrooks
16-03-2008, 01:00
My last comment in my prior post, adding whoever you want to add to the list of people involved in the decision, still applies.
I am not making any excuses for anyone, it was a mistake with huge impact, but a mistake it was. The words I have seen used in posts about the event are not appropriate.
Eugene
Eugene,
Watching the webcast of the regional, Jim Beck was very clearly called for consultation on the issue. Between the RD and the FIRST Technical Adviser and other FRC officials available by phone, there should have been plenty of non-volunteer help available to help with the decision.
Rick TYler
16-03-2008, 01:04
Watching the webcast of the regional, Jim Beck was very clearly called for consultation on the issue. Between the RD and the FIRST Technical Adviser and other FRC officials available by phone, there should have been plenty of non-volunteer help available to help with the decision.
There was a similar <G14> in discussion in Portland when I was doing my scorekeeper training. The thing about <G14> is that as long as someone hasn't taken the robots and balls away, you have an infinite amount of time to talk about it, read the book, and decide what to do. It's not like a <G22> or blocking foul that you have to discuss from memory. With <G14> it's all right there to see at the end of the match.
eugenebrooks
16-03-2008, 01:10
Actually, I think that the 2008 game is a good one. It is different
in nature than past games, and this has led to some issues with
details in the rules.
There is no chance that the teams on the winning alliance at
SVR have made any enemies and you should not feel that way.
The teams involved are highly visible, and appreciated, members
of the community.
SVR 2008 is behind us. It makes perfect sense to have
constructive discussion about what happened at SVR,
learn from the experience, and move forward.
Eugene
This whole game is terrible...
I hate it more and more each time we play it.... Its entirely decided by penalties. You can't tell who's winning. The rules are ambiguous and are poorly enforced....
I'm glad 2024 qualified for Atlanta. They truly deserve it. I hope team 8 will make it too... (This was team 192's last regional)
I think we made a lot of enemies today, even though we did nothing to anyone... :( I'd like to say sorry to alliance #2, and would hope that our teams continue to work together and help each other out.
David Brinza
16-03-2008, 01:38
This whole game is terrible...
I hate it more and more each time we play it.... Its entirely decided by penalties. You can't tell who's winning. The rules are ambiguous and are poorly enforced....
I'm glad 2024 qualified for Atlanta. They truly deserve it. I hope team 8 will make it too... (This was team 192's last regional)
I think we made a lot of enemies today, even though we did nothing to anyone... :( I'd like to say sorry to alliance #2, and would hope that our teams continue to work together and help each other out.I don't think the game concept is bad, the inequities arising from penalty calls (or non-calls) are the issue. The referees have an unenviable job and are bound to make errors on some judgment calls in real-time. Where the rules and their interpretation is involved, the rule book, FTA or higher levels of authority are available for clarification. For some reason, this process wasn't effective at the SVR.
Your alliance shouldn't feel responsible for the way this played out. As uncomfortable as this all seems, I doubt that any hard feelings will persist between the teams involved. It's unfortunate that both alliances left the field suffering the consequences of those events. It's done, some lessons will be learned and we'll all move on.
As trivial as this may sound now, remember that everyone who participated in the SVR was a winner. You should feel proud of what your team has accomplished.
115inventorsam
16-03-2008, 01:44
Wow,
That's all I can say for what happened today. And now that I finally got some time to sit down and think back, the finals were just amazing. I wish there was a way we could consider the blue alliance as champions as well, they clearly had as much ability and spirit as our alliance.
Our people that were in the pits at the time actually didn't know about the replay until later, which is part of the reason our robot came in so late, and also because our robot took quite a bit of damage in the previous matches.
Anyways, with that said, 115 would like to thank 100 and 254 again for picking us. Also, we would like to thank the other teams that helped us during the competition in any way, including the finalist alliance for using their timeout to let us fix our robot.
I was at the event today and found many things troubling. I was in the audience and had a few conversations with the teams sitting behind me and next to me, and the "talk" is pretty sad.
I saw a couple mention in this thread the lack of calls for the agressive defense, and everyone sitting around me was saying the same thing in the finals. I didn't see the event yesterday, but both the teams behind me and next to me (I don't think either was in the playoffs) kept commenting that no penalties were being called on the blue alliance. There were numerous comments that the refs were ignoring high speed ramming, impeding, blocking, pinning, and more. All of them said teams were getting penalties and warnings for MUCH LESS during the qualifying rounds, but that in the finals they weren't enforcing the rules. The team next to me said the entire controversy shouldn't have happened anyway, because if the refs called the 2nd match according to the rules that the 3rd match never would have been played anyway. He even said he was rooting for the blue alliance but couldn't believe what they were getting away with.
What really bothered me was the comment by the team behind me something to the effect of "yeah, but don't forget, that's the same ref that gave us tips to beat 254 last year, so he's not gonna call penalties on their oppossing alliance in the playoffs". I asked him what he was talking about, and they explained that last year the ref advised teams how to stop 254 and kept penalizing them during qualifying rounds. He then told me a couple teams including theirs atually passed on picking 254 in the playoffs last year because they were sure they'd get penalties in the playoffs from that ref. I've been out of FRC for a a few years, but still volunteer with FLL and Vex and follow things - but I couldn't believe what I heard today or saw.
How could any of that happen? How could penalties be called during qaulifying rounds but not during the playoffs for the same or worse action? How could a ref give teams advice on how to beat certain teams?
Seems all 6 teams did not get treated fairly. All 6 did great, played hard, and seemed to handle themselves well. Seems to me that the red alliance should have one in two matches if the rules were enforced but the blue alliance should have wont the 3rd match. So in 4 matches, from what I saw, I thought Red should have won matches 1,2 and 4 while blue should have won match 3. problem is, 3 and 4 never should have been played. I feel bad for all 6 teams in the finals, seems they deserved to have a clean finals with all the rules called correctly.
What I saw today did make me think of a thread I read a couple weeks ago after the first events about preparred ref. I'm gonna try to find that thread, but now that I think about it, I guess nothing that happened today should ahve been a surprise.
Mr. Elevator
16-03-2008, 02:41
Hey, I'd like to start this post off by mentioning that both alliances played their best and deserved to win the regional.
/*However being a member of 115, and being a key member of the robots design team and pit crew, I have a certain bias to my team.*/
Even though I know the ruling of the referees is absolute, I do not support their opinion of having the rematch. We were declared the winners (by the referees), were sent back to the pits and started crating our robot....Then we got the news of the upcoming rematch.
I'd also like to add that when fixing the robot in between the matches, there was significant damage caused to our robot that had to have been intentional and in no way could have been accidental. For example, a steel 3/8 in drive axle was bent due to the overly aggressive actions of the opposing alliance. This threatened our chances of continuing on.
/*Once again, this post is not to place any blame.*/
Also, I would like to greatly thank team 192, 8 and 2024 for using their timeout to allow us the chance to fix our elevator spool. Also, I would like to thank the nameless members of team 100's drive crew who assisted me in my quick fix of the spool.
Michael Corsetto
16-03-2008, 02:57
What really bothered me was the comment by the team behind me something to the effect of "yeah, but don't forget, that's the same ref that gave us tips to beat 254 last year, so he's not gonna call penalties on their oppossing alliance in the playoffs". I asked him what he was talking about, and they explained that last year the ref advised teams how to stop 254 and kept penalizing them during qualifying rounds. He then told me a couple teams including theirs atually passed on picking 254 in the playoffs last year because they were sure they'd get penalties in the playoffs from that ref.
How could a ref give teams advice on how to beat certain teams?
I was a driver at SVR last year, and I remember the comment that the head ref made about "how to beat 254" during the drivers meeting. I believe that topic was discussed last year, it certainly disturbed me, because although I was not part of 254, we scored in the same method and he was basically telling the teams how to stop us as well.
As far as this years finals are concerned, I was completely shocked with the level of defense and contact that was allowed throughout the final matches. In final match 2, team 8's catapult mechanism turned 254's pneumatic release valve, putting they're scoring mechanism out of commission. Why it was not a bumper-zone violation, I don't know. The extent to which team 8 blocked the trackball was very sketchy, I apologize for not knowing all of the rules front to back, but sitting in a corner blocking one of the trackballs is not allowed if I remember correctly (please don't thrash me on not knowing the rules, but I distinctly remember team 8 blocking two trackballs, one of which was popped, for over 15 seconds in I believe match 2) As far as the G<14> ruling goes, I'm very displeased with how the referees handled the call. Apparently it was being called the same way the entire regional (ie. teams would lift up the ball two inches and "descore" the trackball) but when it comes the the finals, they finally decided to change their ruling? I agree with Martin, this years game is too open to interpretation, which makes it really hard to be a referee, and have consistent ruling from regional to regional. I think SVR had the most defense-heavy matches you will see this year.
Nevertheless, very exciting finals put up by both alliances, great robots all around. Thank you to all the volunteers that made the regional possible!
Mike C.
Pavan Dave
16-03-2008, 03:02
This whole game is terrible...
I hate it more and more each time we play it.... Its entirely decided by penalties. You can't tell who's winning. The rules are ambiguous and are poorly enforced....
I'm glad 2024 qualified for Atlanta. They truly deserve it. I hope team 8 will make it too... (This was team 192's last regional)
I think we made a lot of enemies today, even though we did nothing to anyone... :( I'd like to say sorry to alliance #2, and would hope that our teams continue to work together and help each other out.
I think I can speak on behalf of many people that we are not mad at 100, 254, or 115, but rather at the way the finals were handled by the referees. The facts that the referees didn't follow the manual, and FIRST stated in the beginning they would try to tackle this problem with a test, have made made many people wonder why SIMPLE problems are occurring and some of us are terrified that there may be a Finals match 7 on Einstein...
I'd also like to add that when fixing the robot in between the matches, there was significant damage caused to our robot that had to have been intentional and in no way could have been accidental. For example, a steel 3/8 in drive axle was bent due to the overly aggressive actions of the opposing alliance. This threatened our chances of continuing on.
I don't mean this in a bad way, but I don't think any of their team would have tried to intentionally damaged YOUR robot specifically, seeing as how 100 and 254 were the clear top hurdlers. Obviously, I was getting annoyed both as a driver and a spectator when there were clearly aggressive actions going on.
The extent to which team 8 blocked the trackball was very sketchy, I apologize for not knowing all of the rules front to back, but sitting in a corner blocking one of the trackballs is not allowed if I remember correctly (please don't thrash me on not knowing the rules, but I distinctly remember team 8 blocking two trackballs, one of which was popped, for over 15 seconds in I believe match 2)
No "thrashing", but it is allowed as long as their is space to go around that robot on the track, which there was. Also, the popped ball couldn't be replaced yet because it was unsafe for the field personnel to do so. You can also legally herd their ball around the field to prevent them from ever picking it up and hurdling the ball.
Although the head ref was pretty reasonable, there were a TON of inconsistencies with the refs about many different things. We had referees trying to tell us that we had to have the entire robot on the slanted fence when only one point needed to be. This happened throughout both days, and even once in our last match. We needed to get another ref to prove that we were right each time. It also seemed like some refs were timid in calling penalties, unsure about whether to call an obvious penalty.
From my observations, it seemed like the refs were trying to cut back on calling penalties. For example, during one of the finals matches, 254 had a blue ball get into their gripper mechanism somehow. Immediately, our drive team turned to one another and said "that's possession" but it was never called. There were multiple instances throughout the day where the assistant refs didn't seem to know what was going on. Out of the 10 qualifying matches, I think I went to the challenge box at least 6 or 7 times, and even one more during eliminations.
I understand they are all volunteers, but even at the same regional, there were inconsitencies from one end of the field to the other. The passion that most of the students have are reflected in the fact that they know more rules than SOME of the refs.
But of course, we all know that at the end of the day, all that matters was we had fun(ish) and learned stuff (I hope).
Also, the popped ball couldn't be replaced yet because it was unsafe for the field personnel to do so.
This was compounded by the fact that the nearest replacement balls were off in the concourse about 100 feet away.
Mr. Elevator
16-03-2008, 03:26
I see what you meant, 100 and 254 were the clear hurdlers. We were only chosen because we have an effective ball removing system (having removed several per match during the qualifiers). Yet, steel shafts don't bend on their own, and sadly robots don't cripple themselves.
And 1 more side note, this is a bit funny:
During the final matches, the leads to one (out of two) of our elevator drive motors was disconnected. This is why we were struggling to do take it off in the 3rd match.
In our motor configuration, when only 1 motor is driving, 75% of the elevators power is lost. (Due to the motor not only having to drive the elevator, but also having to back-drive a 108:1 planetary gearbox not pulling its own weight)
Thank you very much for your input, I've always liked both your team and your team name.
This was compounded by the fact that the nearest replacement balls were off in the concourse about 100 feet away.
I didn't see them run a ball over, but I did notice the head ref stop them from changing the ball until it looked somewhat safe. Congrats on the win though, look forward to competing with(maybe?) you guys in Hawaii.
I am on Team 192. Certainly I think that the 3rd match was poorly judged, and I also agree that previous matches were as well. The fact that we filed a complaint that was acknowledged as a human error but was not corrected strikes me very oddly. Clearly the 12 point bonus should have be rescored, however, due to the pressure on the reffs of the final match, there was a rematch, where again the reffs failed to call team 254 possessing a blue track ball, breaking a field element, AND pinning down a robot for over 6 seconds. I do not object to the fact that 254 and 100 are excellent robots that deserve first place. However, the defense team 8 played and its combination with 2024 and our strategies has clearly showed the point difference in matches 2, 3 and 4 of the finals. In each match I saw the blue alliance with a clear lead. And even after a bombardment of obscure penalties, I believe we should have a chance to go to nationals. I don't want to rob anything from the winning teams, I just want a shot for our animation that won regionals and for our robot that made it to the finals.
Watching the webcast of the regional, Jim Beck was very clearly called for consultation on the issue. Between the RD and the FIRST Technical Adviser and other FRC officials available by phone, there should have been plenty of non-volunteer help available to help with the decision.
In fact, there was. It was Jim Beck, the FIRST Regional Director, who made the decision that the fairest thing to do was to replay the match.
<G14> was called incorrectly, but consistently throughout the tournament. This was not brought to the refs' attention until after the scores had been announced for finals match 3. At this point, what can be done? No decision will leave everyone happy. Changing the call would leave alliance one feeling cheated; declaring that the results are final leaves alliance two feeling cheated. (Either option would still lead to long debates here on CD.) The ideal solution would be for <G14> to have been called correctly in the first place, but given that it wasn't, a replay seems like the best option.
The reffs don't even let you point out the call in time. They strand you in a box as long as possible since they are always skeptical and unwilling to regard teenage opinions. If there wasn't so much haste in posting the results, our patiently waiting alliance would have been addressed immediately after the match finished. However, having said all this, the matter has passed. Congrats to the winning team. If the rules were bent for the final match at SVR, I think FIRST should consider bending them for us going to nationals where we can have a real rematch, hopefully with more reliable penalizing.
The reffs don't even let you point out the call in time. They strand you in a box as long as possible since they are always skeptical and unwilling to regard teenage opinions. If there wasn't so much haste in posting the results, our patiently waiting alliance would have been addressed immediately after the match finished. However, having said all this, the matter has passed. Congrats to the winning team. If the rules were bent for the final match at SVR, I think FIRST should consider bending them for us going to nationals where we can have a real rematch, hopefully with more reliable penalizing.
I have something to add along the lines of that. In the haste to get 80 matches in on time, the field staff and queuing people rush you off the field. I was scolded repeatedly to "watch the score from the other side." I don't understand how the student captain is supposed to contest the score if they can't hear both the score and the penalties announced. When I did get to talk to the head ref though, I was satisfied with the explanation though not necessarily happy with it. However, it is all said and done, and we have to just move on and try to get a more consistent ruling somehow. I hope FIRST does take the unusual step of allowing the blue alliance's teams to get the opportunity to go to the Championships.
For crying out loud... I turn my back on FIRST to go live my life outside of it for one weekend, and another blatant miscarriage of the rules happens at yet another regional.
I'm really beginning to wonder if this "training course" has actually had a NEGATIVE effect on the refereeing. In all my years of FIRST [since 2003], I have NEVER seen bad refereeing to this extreme.
The first really bad one I noticed was week 2 in the early part of Friday at NASA/VCU. They were not awarding hybrid points for line crossings other than the alliances finish line. Blatantly flat out wrong, as defined in the rules. No interpretation issues, no nothing, just plain wrong.
Interspersed is varying amounts of griping about G22, which while I think the rule sucks and needs to be changed, at least they're calling it properly.
Also, there's the Week 1 1519 incident with Speed Racer/Fezzik being deemed two ROBOTS, with no one ever defining the difference between a ROBOT and a MECHANISM. To me, the ROBOT Controller makes the ROBOT. Of course, theres an available counter-argument that its a robot CONTROLLER, and is thus attached to the ROBOT itself. This infuriated me, not because it in any way affected my team's outcome, but because this type of design was what I had always envisioned as the epitome of the intent of the 'interchangeable mechanisms, but must be within weight' rule, but never built anything like it because we have enough trouble making weight as it is.
Theres ALSO the Week 1 MWR incident with 16's BLATANT blocking autonomous against 1024 and 1114. It wasn't called, and it should have been, much less giving 1114 a yellow card for ramming. The fact that I disagree with the GDC basically outlawing any defensive anti-scoring tactics is irrelevant to the bad reffing regarding it. I think that "no defense" rules, specifically in autonomous where I would argue a large percentage of games are won and lost for powerhouse teams like 1114 and 1024, generate a very unbalanced game for experienced teams with a good autonomous mode.
Now week 3, SVR, blatantly wrong calls on trackball endgame scoring. The situation in question (red robot partially supporting blue ball) is EXPLICITLY set out in the rules, with a direct and plain ruling that the ball SCORES.
Now I'm likely to take some negative rep for this, but I don't care. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. When teams spend at least $4,000 to attend this event, pour 6 weeks of heart and soul, blood, sweat, and tears and whatever else into their robot, its not right/fair/just/whatever to arrive at a competition with sub-par officiating, much less be stripped of a regional win because of a blatant miscarriage of the rules. Being a volunteer is 100% NOT a valid excuse for producing shoddy work. Period. Lots of people say I'm being unfair to the referees, and that I should cut them some slack since they're just volunteers. News Flash: All the mentors of FIRST teams are volunteers too, and they need to know the rules as good or BETTER than the referees, since they are assisting in DESIGNING the robots to play the game. So don't give me that load of malarkey.
Go ahead, let the negative rep fly, and accuse me of being un-GP. I'm not afraid to stand up for what is RIGHT. Gracious Professionalism is a complex theory, but its right there in the name. Professionalism. Miscarriages of the rules, thats UNPROFESSIONAL. Unlike alot of CD-ers, I'm not afraid to make a statement that might be controversial. Just don't associate MY PERSONAL VIEWS as expressed in this post, and hold them negatively against the team I happen to be associated with. I can assure you all that my views would be the same no matter what team I happen to be a part of.
To the blue alliance I sincerely hope that FIRST ponies up an extra set of trophies, banners, and seats in Atlanta and awards ALL SIX teams the regional win, as its not fair to strip red of their victory because they made a mistake.
Pingreeee
16-03-2008, 07:03
After reading the flurry of posts today's events caused I think it is right to clarify a few things.
1. "high speed bumping and ramming" - about half way through practice matches on Thursday I noticed that the refs were being much more lenient on contact then they had been at Portland so I spoke to the head ref to clarify his interpretation of the rules. What he said was that contact within the bumper zone will only incur if the robot in question is repeatedly backing up and ramming an opposing robot. Or if they are pinning another robot against a wall. As for contact outside the bumper zone, we were penalized for it multiple times. If you are unclear on how the refs are going to call a regional, talk to them, they are quite friendly.
2. "impeding in the finals" - Once again we discussed with the refs about the legality of pinning a ball against the wall to stop an opposing robot from gaining possession. We were told that as long as there is an open lane for robots to pass through we are NOT impeding and receiving any penalties as long as we are sitting there.
3. "the do-over?" - After the finals were decided fro the second time I discussed with the head ref why he made the decision he did. The reason was, since they has made the call incorrectly in the past it would be unfair to reverse it then. I think that is absurd. I would have been much happier with the refs saying that they were sticking to there call and having just lost normally. Furthermore, I understand that the refs are only human and can't be expected to know every single rule perfectly. That is why it is the competing teams JOB to watch fro incorrect calls and step into that yellow box to show the refs the rule they are misinterpreting or mis enforcing. Just because previous teams had failed to fulfill this duty should not mean that the team that finally does it should be so dramatically penalized for the shortcomings of the previous teams.
4. "team 100" - If anyone on my team or either 192 or 2024 believes you to be an enemy after SVR I would be utterly ashamed to be on the same team as. You guys have a fantastic team, a fantastic team and really do deserve to be champions. Of course the entire blue alliance was frustrated we believe we deserved to win the regional but I acknowledge that you did nothing wrong and even came to all our pits to congratulate us on the regional as it was. Thank you for truly demonstrating what Gracious Professionalism means!
and last of all despite all of the confusion frustration and anger it was a pleasure to drive on the field with all of the robots at this years Silicon Valley Regional.
waialua359
16-03-2008, 09:11
For crying out loud... I turn my back on FIRST to go live my life outside of it for one weekend, and another blatant miscarriage of the rules happens at yet another regional.
I'm really beginning to wonder if this "training course" has actually had a NEGATIVE effect on the refereeing. In all my years of FIRST [since 2003], I have NEVER seen bad refereeing to this extreme.
The first really bad one I noticed was week 2 in the early part of Friday at NASA/VCU. They were not awarding hybrid points for line crossings other than the alliances finish line. Blatantly flat out wrong, as defined in the rules. No interpretation issues, no nothing, just plain wrong.
Interspersed is varying amounts of griping about G22, which while I think the rule sucks and needs to be changed, at least they're calling it properly.
Also, there's the Week 1 1519 incident with Speed Racer/Fezzik being deemed two ROBOTS, with no one ever defining the difference between a ROBOT and a MECHANISM. To me, the ROBOT Controller makes the ROBOT. Of course, theres an available counter-argument that its a robot CONTROLLER, and is thus attached to the ROBOT itself. This infuriated me, not because it in any way affected my team's outcome, but because this type of design was what I had always envisioned as the epitome of the intent of the 'interchangeable mechanisms, but must be within weight' rule, but never built anything like it because we have enough trouble making weight as it is.
Theres ALSO the Week 1 MWR incident with 16's BLATANT blocking autonomous against 1024 and 1114. It wasn't called, and it should have been, much less giving 1114 a yellow card for ramming. The fact that I disagree with the GDC basically outlawing any defensive anti-scoring tactics is irrelevant to the bad reffing regarding it. I think that "no defense" rules, specifically in autonomous where I would argue a large percentage of games are won and lost for powerhouse teams like 1114 and 1024, generate a very unbalanced game for experienced teams with a good autonomous mode.
Now week 3, SVR, blatantly wrong calls on trackball endgame scoring. The situation in question (red robot partially supporting blue ball) is EXPLICITLY set out in the rules, with a direct and plain ruling that the ball SCORES.
Now I'm likely to take some negative rep for this, but I don't care. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. When teams spend at least $4,000 to attend this event, pour 6 weeks of heart and soul, blood, sweat, and tears and whatever else into their robot, its not right/fair/just/whatever to arrive at a competition with sub-par officiating, much less be stripped of a regional win because of a blatant miscarriage of the rules. Being a volunteer is 100% NOT a valid excuse for producing shoddy work. Period. Lots of people say I'm being unfair to the referees, and that I should cut them some slack since they're just volunteers. News Flash: All the mentors of FIRST teams are volunteers too, and they need to know the rules as good or BETTER than the referees, since they are assisting in DESIGNING the robots to play the game. So don't give me that load of malarkey.
Go ahead, let the negative rep fly, and accuse me of being un-GP. I'm not afraid to stand up for what is RIGHT. Gracious Professionalism is a complex theory, but its right there in the name. Professionalism. Miscarriages of the rules, thats UNPROFESSIONAL. Unlike alot of CD-ers, I'm not afraid to make a statement that might be controversial. Just don't associate MY PERSONAL VIEWS as expressed in this post, and hold them negatively against the team I happen to be associated with. I can assure you all that my views would be the same no matter what team I happen to be a part of.
To the blue alliance I sincerely hope that FIRST ponies up an extra set of trophies, banners, and seats in Atlanta and awards ALL SIX teams the regional win, as its not fair to strip red of their victory because they made a mistake.
Well, I will be the first to say that your frustrations have validity.
At NASA/VCU where we attended, we indeed saw instances of what you are talking about. That is a an enormous error that affects matches. But overall, it was pretty fair referee calling.
Your point about our own teams has volunteers also is right on. When your mentor(s) help in designing a robot, we are expected to follow the rules 100%. Inspectors dont care about excuses. You get them fixed/modified or you dont play. Those are the consequences that the "volunteers" on our team must follow and prepare for.
The same must be said of referees. They must make sure they know the rules also. As humans, I can understand a missed call due to human error of not seeing it. But, to hurdle according to the rules done by two bots on one ball, or pass 3/4 lane dividers and get only 4 points, that's just outright a lack of understanding of how points are scored (my personal examples).
For those that feel that referees should be given slack with no gracious suggestions for improvement, what if the reverse comment was said?
"Why dont we just let robots play who dont pass inspection?" The excuse: Our mentors who help the students build robots are just volunteers. Give them a break.
Lavapicker
16-03-2008, 11:56
As the lead mentor for 2024 I can assure you we have no hard feelings towards anyone on the red alliance...only admiration! You guys were awesome and we'd love to have been with you on an alliance! Mahalo for the "Thank you" for calling a timeout so you could fix your bots. Our team captain called it without consultation which says a lot for his "gracious professionalism". I told him after that it was right thing to do and that we wanted to beat you guys straight up...it was unfortunate about the call in the third game to do a replay but you guys had nothing to do with that!!
I feel really bad for our alliance partners who both now will not qualify for Nationals. I wish there was some way FIRST could see the error and at least qualify team 8 and 192. IF anyone out there has any pull I'd love to see you bring the issue up. They were fantastic alliance partners with great spirit and would only be a plus at Nationals.
115inventorsam
16-03-2008, 12:06
By the way, I would like to apologize to the teams(were they 2035 and 766?) whose stations got slammed into by our robot in the quarterfinals and the first match of the semifinals. We really don't know what went wrong, the code was checked repeatedly and nothing like what we saw was supposed to happened. Instead, the robot was supposed to move up to the overpass to prepare to knock off the ball for 254 to pick up. Once we were disabled in the first match of the semifinals, we just gave up on it and got rid of the code altogether.
=Martin=Taylor=
16-03-2008, 12:09
Congratulations to team 604 for wining the chairman's award! You guys really deserve it! :)
Eugene Fang
16-03-2008, 12:11
Congratulations to team 604 for wining the chairman's award! You guys really deserve it! :)
Thank you! And congratulations on your win! It was a very exciting match.
Ok, I have a question to ask of all of the alliance captains. This is more of a feedback to me on whether we overlooked something. I mentor team 581 out of san jose high academy. At the end of qualifying, the team was ranked 13th (was at 9th right before their last match). Now, I will say that I watched very little of the matches because I mentor a couple other teams as well, but I'd like to get some feedback as to why 581 didn't get selected, so if you have any insight, i'd very much appreciate it. There are no hard feelings involved what so ever, I'm just wondering if the kids didn't talk to enough teams (advertising)? didn't look reliable during the matches? just not compatible with your game plan...
If it is something that can be improved on, I'd like to work on it for next year.
Also, if you would feel more comfortable answering my question though pm, please feel free to do so.
Thanks!
David Brinza
16-03-2008, 13:19
Ok, I have a question to ask of all of the alliance captains. This is more of a feedback to me on whether we overlooked something. I mentor team 581 out of san jose high academy. At the end of qualifying, the team was ranked 13th (was at 9th right before their last match). Now, I will say that I watched very little of the matches because I mentor a couple other teams as well, but I'd like to get some feedback as to why 581 didn't get selected, so if you have any insight, i'd very much appreciate it. There are no hard feelings involved what so ever, I'm just wondering if the kids didn't talk to enough teams (advertising)? didn't look reliable during the matches? just not compatible with your game plan...
If it is something that can be improved on, I'd like to work on it for next year.
Also, if you would feel more comfortable answering my question though pm, please feel free to do so.
Thanks!
I applaud you for asking a difficult question very graciously.
I didn't watch any of your matches, so I'm not able to address your question directly. I can offer this: other than being in the top 8 (well, maybe 10-12) at the end of qual's, standing is not a major factor in selecting a team as an alliance partner. Scouting by good teams will sort out teams according to performance (scoring, driving, reliability, etc.) without much weight given to standings. When it gets down to the "short list", there are some intangible factors that can influence a pick (performance in prior regionals, publicity, etc.). Selecting teams generally do have a game strategy and will select partners accordingly. I've witness several regionals where a team ranked at or near the bottom of the standings were selected just because they fit the strategy the alliance captain intends to employ.
Half of the teams are left to watch the elimination rounds and many of them wonder why they weren't selected. It's easiest to just say, "it wasn't our time" and enjoy the rest of the competition and awards. Don't let the obscure (and sometimes seemingly unfair) alliance selection process take away from your celebration of the regional. All the teams that put a robot on the field should feel a special sense of accomplishment.
Guy Davidson
16-03-2008, 13:23
Before I jump into the meat of this post, I must begin with some thanks and congratulations. Please take this to be my opinion, and perhaps the general opinion of the team.
Our outmost thanks to Warrior Pride of Hilo, Hawai’I, team 2024, and the Gunn Robotics Team, team 192, for inviting us to join their alliance. We made an excellent alliance, survived many mistakes, penalties, and bad breaks, and gave the #1 alliance a run for their money. Thank you guys for the most amazing and spirited alliance I can remember being part of.
Speaking of the #1 alliance, our congratulations to you guys. Teams 100 and 254, you guys had amazing hurdlers, and a great third alliance partner in team 115. We knew that if we make it into the finals, you guys will likely be waiting there for us, and that it would be an uphill battle. Thank you guys for some of the hardest fought matches of this regional, and congratulations on your victory. Although I don’t think anyone is particularly pleased with the circumstances surrounding the last match of the finals round, at the end of the day, you guys won. And worry not. At least in our book, you guys have made no enemies. Also, 254, if we accidentally opened your pneumatic release valve, our apologies. We never aimed to make contact outside the bumper zone, and we’re terribly sorry if that happened. Our intent was and always will be to play defense as allowed by the referee’s interpretations of the rules.
Our thanks must also go to the event crew and volunteers. Particularly, we’d like to thank Jim Beck (head of the regional committee, I believe) and Dr. Andy Hospodor (head referee) for taking the time to explain their decisions to us. I personally would also like to thank Dr. Eugene Brooks for coming to us with some words of wisdom after it was all said and done, which helped us think about this issue and post more clearly.
However, will the utmost respect we have for Jim, Andy, and the entire crew, we still disagree with their decision. For the benefit of those who did not watch the webcast, or did not hear the explanations from the officials, here are the events: (Note: this is how we understand and were explained what happened. Do not take this to be set in stone)
At the end of finals match 3, a blue trackball was up on the overpass, partially supported by the overpass and partially by one of the red alliance robots. The initial scoring of the match did not count that bonus trackball, leading to a score of red by eight or so (but definitely less than 12). We immediately pulled up the rules (looking at G14, which rules that ball should be scored in this situation), and went to the challenge box. After showing the rule to the head referee first, and then to several of the other referees, we waited for a result. We expected the regional to be over and that we would have won the match; after all, that twelve point swing should have put our alliance on top. However, as it was explained to us later, the referees have been calling that rule incorrectly all regional. As such, they decided to not change matches that have already been played, and replay the match. We played a fourth math, and lost it.
We disagreed, and still disagree, with the decision made to replay the match. In our view, the referees should have either decided that the call was incorrect, and award us the bonus points and the match victory, or kept the different ruling, and ended the match as-is. We do not think that replaying the match was the appropriate decision.
We will try and contact FIRST soon about trying to get some form of ruling about this controversial ending to what otherwise was an amazing regional. Should this have been the path? Are there any guidelines to event officials about what should happen in the event of a ruling mistake? The only thing we would consider requesting FIRST, and would really appreciate, is the opportunity to attend the World Championships in Atlanta this year. Congratulations to team 2024 for qualifying via their well deserved Regional Engineering Inspiration award. However, in the meantime, neither team 192 nor we qualify, and team 192 is not signed up for any future events.
Thank you for taking your time to read this post, and I hope it helps to clarify the events of yesterday.
chaoticprout
16-03-2008, 13:25
I've witness several regionals where a team ranked at or near the bottom of the standings were selected just because they fit the strategy the alliance captain intends to employ.
Team 4 in '06 and '07 in So Cal and 294 just last week in SD comes to mind.
I applaud you for asking a difficult question very graciously.
I didn't watch any of your matches, so I'm not able to address your question directly. I can offer this: other than being in the top 8 (well, maybe 10-12) at the end of qual's, standing is not a major factor in selecting a team as an alliance partner. Scouting by good teams will sort out teams according to performance (scoring, driving, reliability, etc.) without much weight given to standings. When it gets down to the "short list", there are some intangible factors that can influence a pick (performance in prior regionals, publicity, etc.). Selecting teams generally do have a game strategy and will select partners accordingly. I've witness several regionals where a team ranked at or near the bottom of the standings were selected just because they fit the strategy the alliance captain intends to employ.
Half of the teams are left to watch the elimination rounds and many of them wonder why they weren't selected. It's easiest to just say, "it wasn't our time" and enjoy the rest of the competition and awards. Don't let the obscure (and sometimes seemingly unfair) alliance selection process take away from your celebration of the regional. All the teams that put a robot on the field should feel a special sense of accomplishment.
Thanks David! I do realize that the alliance selection could be as unpredictable as the lottery sometimes, I just wanted to find out if it is anything in particular that we can improve on next year.
Brandon Holley
16-03-2008, 14:25
After taking some time after watching the regional yesterday, and watching quite a few matches from SVR that I had saved, I must say the following:
Even though the referees blatantly screwed up a call in finals match 3, they had also blatantly missed other calls all day. It was consistently horrible...
Through all that, the referees did the right thing in playing a 4th match. It would be unfair to not only be horrible but to be inconsistent with what they had done all day and all regional. They did the right thing in staying consistent with their calls and as per how the refs were ruling at 2008 SVR, the red alliance of 254 100 and 115 DESERVINGLY won the regional.
Congratulations to them, and lets try to not take ANYTHIGN away from their win.
While the blue alliance had one of the worst calls in FIRST put on them, the referees had missed several other calls, particularly in match 2 of the finals that cost the red alliance that win in that match.
Both alliances should stand proud. Maybe FIRST might give the blue alliance a championship bid, maybe not. Regardless of what happened both alliances should be proud, but lets try not to take away anything from 254 100 and 115s win in talking about the controversy.
Mr. Elevator
16-03-2008, 14:26
Hey, regarding your question.
I'd have to say that getting chosen is an assortment of several factors. First of all, looking good is very important. My team, 115, was reliable throughout the matches. We may have lost a few, yet if we cap 6 laps and knock off 2 of the opposing balls it doesn't make us look bad at all. (this is assuming that the alliance captains don't only rely on rank to choose their alliance).
Also, I think there is a fair bit of PR/advertising to do with getting you chosen.
Anyways, hope this helps a bit. As I said earlier, I only do pit work so I don't really to PR/scouting.
Congratulations to both the winners and the finalists at SVR. 192, 8 and 2024 who put up an excellent show of gracious professionalism.
(haha here's a fun fact: 5 years ago poofs+115 won SVR. I guess we've come full circle.)
programid
16-03-2008, 14:32
Hey, guys. I'd just like to say one thing. As an FLLer soon to be in FRC, I watched the regional and it was a hard-fought contest. Although they played an extra match I think all six should be given Championship bids. However, I'd like to bring another example into play. If anyone remembers that Olympic controversy in '04, there was discord over the scoring. Referees are human, and we should accept our losses.
We were also thinking why didn't we get picked, we had four of us just step back and say what do we have to offer a good alliance. We realized for a lap bot/herder we got awfully slow and can only do as many laps as a good hurdler but only get a quarter of their points. We realized that to be big we need to reliably have the ability to knock a ball off, get more than 4-5 laps per match, and play defense. We decided to throw together designs and ways of speeding up for Davis next week.
Danny McC
16-03-2008, 15:25
Well I guess if you have people talking to other teams and you can convince them that youd be a good alliance partner than they would pick you. The best way to get picked it to have a good bot and to let people know that you have a good bot.
gizzlyMIKE000
16-03-2008, 15:34
ya i know but as team 1516 driver i would like to say i was very shot down that no alliance had picked us. i felt that we would have been am amazing pick as a third bot. we averaged 5-6 laps and could place excellent defense and could knock the ball off ever time and stop the 12 point bonus for the other team. and if no balls were needed to be knocked off then we could do a total of 8-9 laps. i was sad but hey what can you do. nothing right. but we are excited for davis bc we got a huge trick up our sleeve and we are going to be even faster and easier to control.
eugenebrooks
16-03-2008, 16:03
Thanks David! I do realize that the alliance selection could be as unpredictable as the lottery sometimes, I just wanted to find out if it is anything in particular that we can improve on next year.
Don't be too quick to blame this on the performance of
your own team. It could be that, in some cases, the teams
involved in picking partners could do better in their scouting
activities. I'll not mention any names here...
Eugene
Guy Davidson
16-03-2008, 16:14
With regards to alliance selections:
Sometimes you just have to know how to impress. After attempting to fix our hurdling mechanism for our first nine matches (out of ten), we finally conceded that we should try to make eliminations as a ball knocker / lap runner / defensive bot. We were playing against team 192, the #3 seed and eventual member of the #2 alliance. During that match, we estimate we cost them a hurdle or two, while running seven laps and knocking a ball off. We believe that's where we convinced them we make a fantastic third alliance member, and we took it all the way to the finals.
Although I understand the pressure the referees are under, saying they are only human is a poor excuse. This isn't a matter of not seeing something because it happened quickly or not being able to perfectly recall what happened.
But here's my real question: Why was this not brought up before the finals?
Guy Davidson
16-03-2008, 16:33
I don't know. Were other teams unaware of this ruling, or simply did not care to change it, as maybe it never affected the final result of a match? I know that we brought it up the first time we saw it happen, but, from the cheering of the crowd, it seemed that everyone else thought it shouldn't be scored.
I personally approached the refs earlier in the regional about a hurdle not being scored when it should have, and even though it did not affect the final score of the match, it changed the future ruling.
I guess, let it be a warning to all teams: If you see the referees making what you think is a ruling interpretation mistake, point it out as soon as you see it. That way, maybe we can avoid unfortunate situations such as this one in th future.
danshaffer
16-03-2008, 16:44
And for those of you with week 4 or 5 regionals, it is our interpretation of the rules that:
1. If a robot from Alliance B descores a ball belonging to Alliance A that was placed there by a robot from Alliance A and it ends up on the other side of the finish line (ie not in Alliance A's home stretch) it is an 8-point hurdle. Keep this in mind when attempting to remove bonus balls. This comes from the definition of hurdle.
2. Bonus balls must not be supported by a robot from the same alliance. Balls that are supported by only the overpass and robots from that alliance are scored as +12 in accordance with G14.
Alex Golec
16-03-2008, 17:25
So much for the certification test, huh?
What I'm wondering about and somewhat surprised at is why this mistake wasn't caught earlier in the regional and brought up to the referees - then the error could have been remedied (perhaps with some score changes to previous matches) and the game played as described in the rulebook. That responsibility would have had to lie with the teams.
sarcasticmadnes
16-03-2008, 18:30
As part of the drive crew (finally in time for senior year), I would like to thank the blue alliance for calling their timeout for us before the second match so that we could fix the spool for the elevator. As a team, we truly appreciate it. It was an act of true gracious professionalism that we all applaud to.
I believe that the blue alliance did a fabulous job in the finals. For our team, it was one of the toughest matches we had yet to face as all three teams had amazing bots. I can only wish that the blue alliance could also qualify for championships as well because they deserve it wholeheartedly. I spoke with a member from Gunn as I walked back into the Event Center for eliminations, and he said that our team was lucky to be picked into the first alliance. But I must say that we were lucky to face Gunn and their alliance partners in the finals because all three are wonderful teams.
As for getting picked into eliminations this year for our team, it was a total surprise. When it came down to the last pick, I was actually about to leave for lunch because I figured we weren't going to get picked, but then I heard the magic number "115". So I would like to take this time to likewise thank 100 and 254. You guys both have amazing bots, and I look forward to competing with your teams in the future.
Good Luck to everyone competing in another regional this month and at Championships (I'll see you there! :) )
eugenebrooks
16-03-2008, 18:40
With regard to item 1, it depends on how it was put there.
If it was put there after carrying it past the finish line, or
after scoring it past the finish line for 2 points, it would
not count as a hurdle. Some robots can put a ball on the
overpass reaching backwards without breaking the plane.
Eugene
And for those of you with week 4 or 5 regionals, it is our interpretation of the rules that:
1. If a robot from Alliance B descores a ball belonging to Alliance A that was placed there by a robot from Alliance A and it ends up on the other side of the finish line (ie not in Alliance A's home stretch) it is an 8-point hurdle. Keep this in mind when attempting to remove bonus balls. This comes from the definition of hurdle.
2. Bonus balls must not be supported by a robot from the same alliance. Balls that are supported by only the overpass and robots from that alliance are scored as +12 in accordance with G14.
Guy Davidson
16-03-2008, 18:55
With regard to item 1, it depends on how it was put there.
If it was put there after carrying it past the finish line, or
after scoring it past the finish line for 2 points, it would
not count as a hurdle. Some robots can put a ball on the
overpass reaching backwards without breaking the plane.
Eugene
That is true. However, the situation we discussed with the refs and clarified, was as follows: red ball starts on the red side over pass. It is knocked down, and is carried across the blue finish line. It is then shot from the red home stretch onto the overpass, where it stays until a blue robot knocks it in the counter-clockwise direction.
That was initially not scored as a hurdle, and after clarification, was called a hurdle.
Don't be too quick to blame this on the performance of
your own team. It could be that, in some cases, the teams
involved in picking partners could do better in their scouting
activities. I'll not mention any names here...
Eugene
Please more detail Eugene ;)
Picking alliances can be so essential, yet I struggle to my team to take it and scouting seriously enough. I'm not sure what the magic recipe is or if one even exists, I just know each year we try to improve on it.
One comment for the team(s) that don't understand why they didn't get selected is to say it is more about the seeded teams selecting than it is about "selling" yourself to another team.
We were in the fourth seed at San Diego and had to turn down an alliance selection from the #3 seed because they couldn't hurdle and we felt that we needed to be in an alliance with at least 2 hurdling bots. But low and behold in the 2nd round of selections, we missed a chance to get a third hurdling bot and the #3 seed team picked them. Hindsight is always 20/20 !
BTW: Here's a link to Finals Match 3 with both matches and commentary by refs as it was shown on the webcast...
http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/jomanc/svr/SVR2008FM3.wmv Thanks for the mirror Joman!!
eugenebrooks
16-03-2008, 19:08
Guy,
I was not reacting to anything that happened in SVR,
I was reacting to the statement requoted below, offered
as guidance for week 4 and 5 regionals. As noted,
whether or not the knockdown is a completion of a
hurdle depends on exactly how it got there, and also
which direction it was knocked down in.
I did note that Team 8 was pretty good at knocking
down a bonus ball in their prefered direction at SVR.
I thought that this was pretty good thinking on the part of
the driver team.
Eugene
Originally Posted by danshaffer
And for those of you with week 4 or 5 regionals, it is our interpretation of the rules that:
1. If a robot from Alliance B descores a ball belonging to Alliance A that was placed there by a robot from Alliance A and it ends up on the other side of the finish line (ie not in Alliance A's home stretch) it is an 8-point hurdle. Keep this in mind when attempting to remove bonus balls. This comes from the definition of hurdle.
2. Bonus balls must not be supported by a robot from the same alliance. Balls that are supported by only the overpass and robots from that alliance are scored as +12 in accordance with G14.
That is true. However, the situation we discussed with the refs and clarified, was as follows: red ball starts on the red side over pass. It is knocked down, and is carried across the blue finish line. It is then shot from the red home stretch onto the overpass, where it stays until a blue robot knocks it in the counter-clockwise direction.
That was initially not scored as a hurdle, and after clarification, was called a hurdle.
CraigHickman
16-03-2008, 19:15
I was going to avoid jumping into this thread, but I really can't resist it.
Sure, the refs are only human. Sure, it's a hard game to call. Sure it's very complex. Sure the refs are only volunteers, but maybe it's time that changed. IF a team is paying around 6k to go to a competition, they don't expect to be sent home and finished for the season because some random guy who decided to be helpful doesn't know his job. Here's my suggestion, and my opinion:
1. Refereeing a competition as high profile as this should not be left to volunteers. Period. When teams pay that much, work that hard, it's not too much to suggest that they'll actually play the game that they built the robot for.
2. The Blue Alliance should be given an invite to Atlanta, and both them and the red alliance should be offered a discount on their playing fees. If a team comes out that strong, that ready to win, and is denied because of the mistake of the organization, then it should be the job of the organization (FIRST) to fix the problem by any means necessary. Blue wasn't the only one who got shafted, the whole regional had the worst reffing I've seen at ANY competition over the years.
People might disagree with me on this, but I honestly don't care. What happened at SVR was blatantly unfair, and should be corrected, any means necessary.
thefro526
16-03-2008, 19:29
I was going to avoid jumping into this thread, but I really can't resist it.
Sure, the refs are only human. Sure, it's a hard game to call. Sure it's very complex. Sure the refs are only volunteers, but maybe it's time that changed. IF a team is paying around 6k to go to a competition, they don't expect to be sent home and finished for the season because some random guy who decided to be helpful doesn't know his job. Here's my suggestion, and my opinion:
1. Refereeing a competition as high profile as this should not be left to volunteers. Period. When teams pay that much, work that hard, it's not too much to suggest that they'll actually play the game that they built the robot for.
2. The Blue Alliance should be given an invite to Atlanta, and both them and the red alliance should be offered a discount on their playing fees. If a team comes out that strong, that ready to win, and is denied because of the mistake of the organization, then it should be the job of the organization (FIRST) to fix the problem by any means necessary. Blue wasn't the only one who got shafted, the whole regional had the worst reffing I've seen at ANY competition over the years.
People might disagree with me on this, but I honestly don't care. What happened at SVR was blatantly unfair, and should be corrected, any means necessary.
Well said my friend, well said.
Sure, the refs are only human. Sure, it's a hard game to call. Sure it's very complex. Sure the refs are only volunteers, but maybe it's time that changed. IF a team is paying around 6k to go to a competition, they don't expect to be sent home and finished for the season because some random guy who decided to be helpful doesn't know his job.
We pay $6k not so much for the competition, but for students to have the opportunity to do something really cool and important in their high school life. I hear from almost every single parent of students on my team about how they wish they had this opportunity when they went to high school. The $6k is for that opportunity. You want paid refs? Paid judges, too? Then you must be talking about wanting to pay $10k per competition also.
Now on the flip side - it seems that the games these past few years have been increasing the roles of referees in deciding matches. Maybe I'm just getting old, but I don't remember all this drama back in 01-04? It seems to have all started with that stupid 30 pt penalty triangle rule from '05. '06 had the offense/defense craziness (not too bad in retrospect), '07 with ramp nonsense (we were let down by non-calls refs didn't make at Bayou), and now in '08, you accidently back up over a line and -10 ?
lemon1324
16-03-2008, 20:09
A few people have been mentioning that no one caught the partially supported trackball earlier. I saw this twice, once in one of our qualification matches, and the infamous incident in the finals. Immediately after the our qualifying match, i asked a ref (admittedly not the Head Referee) and he said that the partially supported trackball would score. I didn't stay to verify as the field reset team was chivvying us off the field. Needless to say, i was very surprised at the call in the finals. Although the refs should know the rules better, bad calls are a part of every sport, and in the long run it's about half for and against your team. Some are just more high-profile than others.
Wow, I can't believe I didn't get a single negative rep for my last post...
Maybe its that I came roaring out of the gate ranting, back in Week 1, and as more and more screwups are happening, more people are seeing it from a perspective that says its unacceptable.
Having been around since 03, I can't really vouch for older games, but I would tend to agree that since 05, we've been having much more penalty-centric games.
I dont even think there were penalties to be had in 03 or 04... none that I remember anyway... there was no bumper zone, so non-bumper contact was fine... I think the only things were like disqualificatons for overly aggressive (read: intent to destroy opponents bots) play.
In any case, I sure hope they can iron it out for our Wk 4 and 5 regionals
CraigHickman
16-03-2008, 20:22
We pay $6k not so much for the competition, but for students to have the opportunity to do something really cool and important in their high school life. I hear from almost every single parent of students on my team about how they wish they had this opportunity when they went to high school. The $6k is for that opportunity. You want paid refs? Paid judges, too? Then you must be talking about wanting to pay $10k per competition also.
...I never said a thing about judges, so please don't make assumptions. If a team doesn't do a job to the best of their ability, do their mentors give them slack because they're not getting paid, and because what they do isn't required of them? No, their mentors call them on their failures. It's how people learn. If the refs were paid, or had more at stake in this competition, maybe we'd see better results out of them.
GaryVoshol
16-03-2008, 20:23
Refereeing a competition as high profile as this should not be left to volunteers. Period. When teams pay that much, work that hard, it's not too much to suggest that they'll actually play the game that they built the robot for.
How much are you going to pay? What would any amount of referee pay get for teams? I don't assume you're willing to pay enough to make this a full=time job. You can't just say, "We'll pay them to be good." Being paid doesn't create good refs. Even if you would offer $1000/ref/competition, that's not enough to get someone to devote their life to being an FRC ref. They would only be part-time employees, and could only devote part of their limited time to learning how to referee in FRC. Which is what the current dedicated volunteers do. Would you rather have a staff dedicated to doing their best for the teams, or a paid staff dedicated to making money?
The Blue Alliance should be given an invite to Atlanta,
I agree completely.
and both them and the red alliance should be offered a discount on their playing fees.
Why? Were the teams so scarred by this that they have to be compensated? The GDC should review this Monday morning. FIRST should be making phone calls to the teams Monday afternoon. There should only be funding involved if there are additional shipping costs (e.g. rerouting the crates).
The Lucas
16-03-2008, 20:49
Now on the flip side - it seems that the games these past few years have been increasing the roles of referees in deciding matches. Maybe I'm just getting old, but I don't remember all this drama back in 01-04? It seems to have all started with that stupid 30 pt penalty triangle rule from '05. '06 had the offense/defense craziness (not too bad in retrospect), '07 with ramp nonsense (we were let down by non-calls refs didn't make at Bayou), and now in '08, you accidently back up over a line and -10 ?
04 was the first year for 10+ point value penalties, before there were minor penalties (which could take points or disable/DQ), disables and DQs (which were more common). There were penalties for many different things, ball chute incursion seemed to be the most common, but I also saw goaltending & robot scoring a small ball (humans had to shoot the balls). The Battlebot-like games of 02 and 03 are probably a major reason for this.
it is unfortunate that SVR had to end in a controversial and chaotic matter, but there are a few things left to point out.
1. this game was not meant to be defended. though yes defending by herding balls is reasonable, there was significant contact between robots especially outside the bumper zone. In the second to last match 254's pneumatic pressure switch was flipped by a teams manipulator.
2. Our ball was popped for roughly half the second final match. this should eliminate any questions about that match given i don't think anyone doubts that 254 could've hurdled at least once in the time it took to replace it, making up for the difference making penalty.
finally congrats to all rookie teams, award winners, and everyone attending.
especially to CHS who was the third alliance leader and made it to semis in their rookie year.
Guy Davidson
16-03-2008, 20:59
2. Our ball was popped for roughly half the second final match. this should eliminate any questions about that match given i don't think anyone doubts that 254 could've hurdled at least once in the time it took to replace it, making up for the difference making penalty.
The fact that the ball popped accidentally should eliminate questions? I disagree. No one intended to pop the ball. It was an accident. What if the ball had remained full, but we had succeeded in defending it?
I cannot say what would have happened if that ball was in play, but I don't think you could either.
its more that they had the ball their, but their was significant confusion over whether it should be put in
also 254 was in possession of the ball when it popped
also 254 was in possession of the ball when it popped
I don't understand what the popped ball has to do with anything..
I understand the problems with the ref call, and am saying out of that!
A popped ball is part of the game. There is no rule saying the ball can never be popped ever. Or they wouldn't of made it inflatable...
So regardless of what would of happened or would not of happened with that ball, point is it popped (in a gripper , not in a gripper , popped by red , popped by blue) doesn't matter the reason and it has nothing to do with the outcome of the game
I don't understand what the popped ball has to do with anything..
I understand the problems with the ref call, and am saying out of that!
A popped ball is part of the game. There is no rule saying the ball can never be popped ever. Or they wouldn't of made it inflatable...
So regardless of what would of happened or would not of happened with that ball, point is it popped (in a gripper , not in a gripper , popped by red , popped by blue) doesn't matter the reason and it has nothing to do with the outcome of the game
I was talking about the delay in which the ball was replaced and when it was popped
math4origami
16-03-2008, 21:23
I don't mean to hurt any feelings, but I'll speak frankly as our scouting leader.
For our alliance, we were looking for 2 hurdlers and 1 defensive bot in our alliance. Therefore, we accepted our partner 2024 becuase they could hurdle relatively reliable.
After that, we looked at defensive bots (which, by preventing at least one opponent from scoring 8 points, is a way higher benefit to the alliance in f than 2 points a lap), and the top of the list list were 8, 2628, and 114. All three played excellent defensive games. As you saw in finals, 8 played great defense, and how much defense can determine a game.
Also, 8 and 2628 showed good driver thinking under pressure by knocking off enemy balls that would have scored 12 points otherwise.
I was talking about the delay in which the ball was replaced and when it was poppedPerhaps it wasn't considered safe to put the ball back in instantly? Or even when it got to the field? The rule on replacing the balls never says "immediately"; it says "at the earliest safe opportunity."
GaryVoshol
16-03-2008, 21:23
Way back on Jan 10, the GDC gave this answer
A broken Trackball will be replaced by a new ball and inserted into the field by the field reset
personnel at roughly the same location. The debris will not be removed until the next safe
opportunity or after the match.
And on Jan 14
If a Trackball becomes damaged or completely deflated, it will be replaced by a new Trackball
at the next safe opportunity. Once the new ball enters the field, the damaged ball is
invalidated, considered field debris, and no longer scorable.
Perhaps it wasn't considered safe to put the ball back in instantly? Or even when it got to the field? The rule on replacing the balls never says "immediately"; it says "at the earliest safe opportunity."
A trackball can be safely introduced at any time. By my understanding of the rules, it should have been introduced regardless of whether it was safe to recover the popped one. As the Q&A notes, the popped one would then be considered field debris.
A trackball can be safely introduced at any time. By my understanding of the rules, it should have been introduced regardless of whether it was safe to recover the popped one. As the Q&A notes, the popped one would then be considered field debris.See the Q&A Gary quoted. Replacements for broken trackballs come in:
at roughly the same location
at the next safe opportunityand debris (the old one) might not be removed until after the match. So it's not when it's safe to recover the old one, it's when it's safe to put a new one in. A robot right there makes it kind of unsafe to put a new one in, wouldn't you say? (IIRC, there was a robot in the immediate vicinity for quite a while.)
Perhaps it wasn't considered safe to put the ball back in instantly? Or even when it got to the field? The rule on replacing the balls never says "immediately"; it says "at the earliest safe opportunity."
agreed!
If I remember correct there was a robot, by that popped ball for most of the time ( and if I'm even more exact it was a red team bot :ahh: )
See the Q&A Gary quoted. Replacements for broken trackballs come in:
at roughly the same location
at the next safe opportunityand debris (the old one) might not be removed until after the match. So it's not when it's safe to recover the old one, it's when it's safe to put a new one in. A robot right there makes it kind of unsafe to put a new one in, wouldn't you say? (IIRC, there was a robot in the immediate vicinity for quite a while.)
I can see where some may say that, but I don't think it'd be unsafe to toss it over the robots and onto the floor.
The person reintroducing the trackballs onto the field does not have to step foot onto the field, or reach over the field border.
There seemed to be a lack of understanding of where and when balls should be reintroduced to the field at SVR in general. In a previous match a ball went out of bounds and was returned to the quadrant PRIOR to that which it exited the field from.
agreed!
If I remember correct there was a robot, by that popped ball for most of the time ( and if I'm even more exact it was a red team bot :ahh: )
I thought it was a blue bot, but my memory is fuzzy.
(IIRC, there was a robot in the immediate vicinity for quite a while.)
Team 8 was defending both of the trackballs, they had stopped moving for a while where it might've been considered safe but the ball was being rolled over from the volunteer area and by the time it was there 100 was pushing 8 for the inflated ball.
math4origami
16-03-2008, 21:49
In regards to paying referees, if we "do the math" like Marc Leone famously suggests, we get:
48 teams x $4000 (according to a previous post) = $192,000
I don't remember exactly, but if we had 10 referees, paid $1000 a weekend, (thats more than $300 a day and more than $30 an hour), then FIRST would be left with $182,000 for the Regional.
In regards to paying referees, if we "do the math" like Marc Leone famously suggests, we get:
48 teams x $4000 (according to a previous post) = $192,000
I don't remember exactly, but if we had 10 referees, paid $1000 a weekend, (thats more than $300 a day and more than $30 an hour), then FIRST would be left with $182,000 for the Regional.
Not a dime of your registration fee goes towards the regional event--the event is responsible for raising enough money to cover the cost of the regional, without help from FIRST.
Not a dime of your registration fee goes towards the regional event--the event is responsible for raising enough money to cover the cost of the regional, without help from FIRST.
I've served on the Davis Regional Committee for years now - And will re-emphasize Cory's point - NOT A DIME from your reg fees goes towards the events cost!!
math4origami
16-03-2008, 22:05
I stand corrected. As a student, I have no idea what goes on behind the FIRST name, except what they ask of us.
The volunteer judges have a tough time on the field. They have to keep track of 10 moving objects at the same time. As the personnel standing closest to the field, I agree that with calls such as impeding, g22, bumping to pass, bumping while hurdling, etc. are totally up to them and will accept them as they are given. I commend them for doing their best at the difficult task.
However, the concern of confusion and "did I see that?" does not apply to rule g14 and other end of game rules. All end of game conditions are easily analyzed by looking at the field at the end of the game. Therefore, it should just be up to reading the rule book word for word, which isn't ambiguous.
"<G14>When the MATCH ends, each TRACKBALL that is at least partially supported by the OVERPASS and not in contact with any ROBOT of the same ALLIANCE will earn a 12-point bonus. If a TRACKBALL is in unrestrained motion (i.e. not in contact with another ROBOT) when the clock reaches zero, its contribution to the score will be based on when it comes to
rest. "
Kevin Sevcik
17-03-2008, 00:10
Not a dime of your registration fee goes towards the regional event--the event is responsible for raising enough money to cover the cost of the regional, without help from FIRST.
That's not entirely correct. At least, it's not correct that the regional sees zero benefit from registration fees. The fees go primarily to pay for kit of parts and FIRST staffers in NH. You know, the high up knowledgeable FRC officals that are present at every event representing FIRST corporate and presumably empowered to make important decisions affecting the outcome of the event.
In regards to paying referees, if we "do the math" like Marc Leone famously suggests, we get:
48 teams x $4000 (according to a previous post) = $192,000
I don't remember exactly, but if we had 10 referees, paid $1000 a weekend, (thats more than $300 a day and more than $30 an hour), then FIRST would be left with $182,000 for the Regional.
FIRST has enough money if they decided to pay the referees. If you look at the annual reports from previous years you can see that their "cash" account has increased by about a million dollars each year.
That's not entirely correct. At least, it's not correct that the regional sees zero benefit from registration fees. The fees go primarily to pay for kit of parts and FIRST staffers in NH. You know, the high up knowledgeable FRC officals that are present at every event representing FIRST corporate and presumably empowered to make important decisions affecting the outcome of the event.
True--but the RD and such are being paid regardless of whether they're at the event, so I wouldn't really call that an event specific cost.
Kevin Sevcik
17-03-2008, 00:24
True--but the RD and such are being paid regardless of whether they're at the event, so I wouldn't really call that an event specific cost.
*coughs*
Not ALL the RDs are paid.
*coughs*
And I'll note that I didn't include RDs in my list of NH staffers paid by reg fees..
laultima
17-03-2008, 01:10
FIRST has enough money if they decided to pay the referees. If you look at the annual reports from previous years you can see that their "cash" account has increased by about a million dollars each year.
Personally, I don't believe paying the refs is the answer. This doesn't guarantee good calls. What would help, however, is making sure the refs are people who have been a part of FIRST in the past, or have strong feelings for what the teams do and how much we put into this, so that they will make certain that the calls they make are the right ones, and will leave nobody (or, as few as possible) scratching their heads over why the rules weren't followed. Now, I don't know what kind of people the refs are (old team members, mentors, etc.), but to me, this seems like the best bet to avoid another SVR like this one.
Woody1458
17-03-2008, 01:20
Just as an FYI it has taken approx 1day 6h for this thread to double in length about 120 new posts, or a post every 15 min day and night. Is that a CD record?
Rick TYler
17-03-2008, 01:20
I don't think <G14> is complex, and it's one refs shouldn't ever get wrong. Things like <G22> are "in the heat of the moment" calls, and should not be second-guessed. It's either a ball or a strike, and the umpire makes the call, likewise for impeding and crossing the plane.
Some of the posts here make it sound like there are an infinite number of obsessed, thoughtful, excited adults just hanging around eager to volunteer to serve at a tournament. Not true. The people who you really want are not going to be seduced by $50, $100, or even $250 paid to be a referee. They aren't going to miss work to go to New Hampshire for training, and they aren't going to be use up more of their vacation either (I'm not going to Boy Scout camp for the first time in nine years because I'm taking 3 days off work to volunteer at Seattle). No offense intended, but youth generally have no idea what sacrifices adults make to volunteer with youth organizations. I've been on the organizing committee for FIRST Washington for a year now, and I can tell you for sure that having too many volunteers is not a FIRST problem.
As for adding four scorekeepers (you would still need the two we already have at each event), that would be another four smart, dedicated volunteers who are already in such short supply.
Here's a suggestion -- each team is required to provide an adult volunteer for each event they attend. This volunteer will have attended two days of training for their job, and will have attended a series of conference calls. If the team's volunteer does not pass a 100-question exam on their volunteer job, the team is not allowed to attend the regional. That would certainly provide some motivation.:]
Just as an FYI it has taken approx 1day 6h for this thread to double in length about 120 new posts. Is that a CD record?
Maybe, but it would need to deal with the game hint threads to get the record.
Vikesrock
17-03-2008, 01:28
Here's a suggestion -- each team is required to provide an adult volunteer for each event they attend. This volunteer will have attended two days of training for their job, and will have attended a series of conference calls. If the team's volunteer does not pass a 100-question exam on their volunteer job, the team is not allowed to attend the regional. That would certainly provide some motivation.:]
Doesn't this bring in some huge conflict of interest issues?
Jay Lundy
17-03-2008, 01:40
Personally I place more blame on the game itself than the refs. This game relies too much on rules and penalties to force teams to play the game the way it was meant to be played. There need to be rules to avoid unimaginative and dominating strategies, but the rules in this game penalize teams for minor missteps far more often than score changing infractions. The refs certainly have a more difficult job than they ever had in the past.
I think 2004 was a good example of an adequate, but not excessive, number of rules. There were rules preventing goal-tending, blocking both corrals, purposeful tipping, and pinning that enforced the intended style of play without causing numerous accidental penalties.
I won't comment on who deserved to win since I'm biased, but considering how close it was, how large a role minor rule violations played, and the ref mistakes I think FIRST owes it to the blue alliance to let them go to Atlanta.
S. Bertsch
17-03-2008, 01:52
I however can say who i thought won San Jose Regional championship seat. It was red alliance (254, 100, 115). That was the most intense finals set i have ever seen, but they came out on top, and i say that with no hard feelings and no remorse. Blue alliance put up fierce competition all the way through, and there should be no further negative comments. To the poofs: you have a great robot and a great team, and im personally honored to have played against you for so long. After getting the opportunity to talk to some of your students and mentors i have come to realize that you are a great team which continuously pushes the limits of what FRC robots can do. Unfortunately too many bigoted people dont have the guts to go up and talk to you and therefore just talk trash. All six teams should be proud of their accomplishments. I look forward to following all the teams progress this season and in the future. Thanks to all the teams and members for making this a great year.
Guy Davidson
17-03-2008, 02:06
Jay, I agree that the refs have a hell of a job this year. I don't envy them at all.
I'm just as biased as you are about who deserved the win. But you know what? It doesn't matter. You guys won it. Cognratulations. You built an amazing robot, had a great alliance, and in the end, gave us more than we could handle.
I also agree with S. Bertsch. Finals were intense, you won, and we're very proud of the fight we gave you.
Hope to see you all in Atlanta.
I don't think <G14> is complex, and it's one refs shouldn't ever get wrong. Things like <G22> are "in the heat of the moment" calls, and should not be second-guessed. It's either a ball or a strike, and the umpire makes the call, likewise for impeding and crossing the plane.
Some of the posts here make it sound like there are an infinite number of obsessed, thoughtful, excited adults just hanging around eager to volunteer to serve at a tournament. Not true. The people who you really want are not going to be seduced by $50, $100, or even $250 paid to be a referee. They aren't going to miss work to go to New Hampshire for training, and they aren't going to be use up more of their vacation either (I'm not going to Boy Scout camp for the first time in nine years because I'm taking 3 days off work to volunteer at Seattle). No offense intended, but youth generally have no idea what sacrifices adults make to volunteer with youth organizations. I've been on the organizing committee for FIRST Washington for a year now, and I can tell you for sure that having too many volunteers is not a FIRST problem.
As for adding four scorekeepers (you would still need the two we already have at each event), that would be another four smart, dedicated volunteers who are already in such short supply.
Here's a suggestion -- each team is required to provide an adult volunteer for each event they attend. This volunteer will have attended two days of training for their job, and will have attended a series of conference calls. If the team's volunteer does not pass a 100-question exam on their volunteer job, the team is not allowed to attend the regional. That would certainly provide some motivation.:]
I don't really understand you. You start out alright, stating that things like <G22> are a judgment call, and <G14> are straight up wrong when applied incorrectly, but then you go on to suggest teams pony up an adult volunteer, which you already said are in short supply (read: my team has ONE dedicated adult mentor). Never mind that the logistics of this are completely outlandish, and the conflict of interest issues that would arise are huge. I also don't really think paying the refs will solve the problem. I know lots of people that get paid tons of money to produce crap. The problem is that its alot harder to 'fire' a volunteer, because their output is crap. Its pretty hard to say to someone that their output is so crappy, we wont even let you do it for free.
I really, truly, honestly DO NOT think that it is unreasonable for teams to EXPECT that FIRST will provide them with a team of referees, who have at least READ the rulebook from cover to cover at least once. Many teams and team members read the book cover to cover tens or hundreds of times in the first week of build. I'll be honest. I DIDN'T read it "cover-to-cover" but, I DID read all the parts that are specific to this years game (Namely the Robot, and Game sections, and small parts of the others). I only read it once. I am known amongst my team as one of the most knowledgeable members when it comes to the rules, and I often find myself remembering something, then going to check it. This is all I expect of the refs. Something like <G14>. I might not expect them to KNOW the part about the partially supported ball by heart, after all, they're human. However, I WOULD expect them to at least remember "Hey, there was something in the rules about a partially supported ball, let me go check that before I make this call."
I DO NOT expect the refs to KNOW every rule in the book to a T off by heart. This would be unreasonable. I DO expect them to have read the book, and questionable events to trigger a checking of the book. The way alot of calls are being made this year, I almost question if SOME of the refs have read the book at all.
Nawaid Ladak
17-03-2008, 11:48
the funny thing i see about people wining about defense, you guys wernt' aroudn in 2002-2004. thats when REAL defense was played in FIRST. I think first has become more of a finese type game. I loved watching the agressive play of 8 during the finals, 254 wasn't really getting ready to hurdle (or at least thats what it looked like to me on the webcast) when 8 started playing defense.
i just wish we could go back to the good old days with no bumpers...
99 where everyone was fighting for the puck also comes to mind... those were fun games...
the funny thing i see about people wining about defense, you guys wernt' aroudn in 2002-2004. thats when REAL defense was played in FIRST. I think first has become more of a finese type game. I loved watching the agressive play of 8 during the finals, 254 wasn't really getting ready to hurdle (or at least thats what it looked like to me on the webcast) when 8 started playing defense.
i just wish we could go back to the good old days with no bumpers...
David Brinza
17-03-2008, 12:42
the funny thing i see about people wining about defense, you guys wernt' aroudn in 2002-2004. thats when REAL defense was played in FIRST. I think first has become more of a finese type game. I loved watching the agressive play of 8 during the finals, 254 wasn't really getting ready to hurdle (or at least thats what it looked like to me on the webcast) when 8 started playing defense.
i just wish we could go back to the good old days with no bumpers...What I do like about bumpers is that they establish the zone where robot-to-robot contact is clearly allowed while affording some protection (by rule) of mechanisms and other sensitive components from defense-oriented robots.
Having less stuff come off of robots during matches is a good thing for FIRST.
Brandon Holley
17-03-2008, 12:56
This paid referees thing is getting a bit out of hand...
In my eyes, throwing money at the same volunteers is not going to fix a thing. I don't see these VOLUNTEERS as being malicioius people who only try hard when there is money involved.
Reffing/umping/whateveryoucallit is not easy EVER. I umpired little league, and it was not easy, and there were maybe 50 people at a game, let alone 3000 or so.
Professional help might be an option. Some referees will ref year round in several different sports. Its not unreasonable to have them jump in for the robotics season too...
sorry for the tangent..
brando
eugenebrooks
17-03-2008, 13:50
This comment is on the money. The teams will always study the rules much more completely than almost all referees. This is because the teams have much more at stake. A good solution to this problem would be to have a mentor from each team, or a subset of teams, who is very well versed on the rules form a committee that could be referenced when a question about the rules is encountered. One could subset the comittee when addressing something with respect to a specific match, so that no rep from the teams involved in the match speaks on that specific issue. This would go a long way to resolve the problem.
Ultimately, it is the head ref that decides given any available input, but a "rules committee" to refer to for learned advice would really help.
Eugene
This paid referees thing is getting a bit out of hand...
In my eyes, throwing money at the same volunteers is not going to fix a thing. I don't see these VOLUNTEERS as being malicioius people who only try hard when there is money involved.
brando
Rick TYler
17-03-2008, 14:01
The worst referee decision I've seen in FIRST. Wow. A "do over"? Is this a third-grade recess? How about this, "We made a mistake. Blue wins."
I feel sorry for Mark that he has to sound supportive of this decision.
EDITED: Having been a Little League umpire, I have immense sympathies for the referees. This same thing happened a couple of times the last day in Oregon, but there the refs called the ball as scored. Sorry for the harsh comments, refs, but this shouldn't have happened like this. Blue won.
I want to apologize to all referees past, present, and future. These remarks were intemperate and not worded in a constructive way. I am truly sorry for them.
Nuttyman54
17-03-2008, 14:16
I've been holding back and just reading for the past few days, but I'd like to jump in and say a few words:
First off, congrats to both finals alliances, they were certainly the best matches of the entire competition (as it should be), so thanks for making it exciting.
And of course, I'd like to say a few words about the reffing.
This regional had an insane number of penalties, and what makes it worse is that I saw just as many penalties that weren't called. I do not believe these were the referee's faults. This game is so dependent on catching all the little things that teams do wrong in a match, that it's nigh impossible to catch them all. This game is inherently inconsistent in reffing simply because it's so hard to catch everything, and the penalties are so subjective.
I'm not saying this excuses the poor reffing in matches, but I would like to bring some perspective to the fact that these guys aren't going to catch everything, simply because there are just too many to catch.
This opinion applies only to in-match penalties that would require instant-replay to correct a call, NOT to game-state calls such as bonus balls, popped track-balls, etc.
It's also highly upsetting to me that the issue of supported trackballs was brought to the referee's attention earlier and was not addressed. It is their job to ensure that the rules are being enforced to the best of their abilities. Some rules are ambiguous, but G14 is completely clear in what counts for a bonus. Once a wrong call has been brought to the ref's attention, it is no excuse to continue calling it wrong just to be consistent. Consistently wrong is still wrong.
I do not agree that paid referees will fix the problem. I believe that referees who know the rules better are the solution to the problem. The referee test is a step in the right direction, but evidently was not rigorous enough. I don't have any better solutions, but I'm sure with everyone here, someone can come up with something.
</soapbox>
CraigHickman
17-03-2008, 17:17
This comment is on the money. The teams will always study the rules much more completely than almost all referees. This is because the teams have much more at stake. A good solution to this problem would be to have a mentor from each team, or a subset of teams, who is very well versed on the rules form a committee that could be referenced when a question about the rules is encountered. One could subset the comittee when addressing something with respect to a specific match, so that no rep from the teams involved in the match speaks on that specific issue. This would go a long way to resolve the problem.
Ultimately, it is the head ref that decides given any available input, but a "rules committee" to refer to for learned advice would really help.
Eugene
I like this idea for a "Rules Committee" They'd have to be on hand for the head ref to ask for clarification, but having a group who's only responsibility is to interpret the rules would go a long way. In order to keep the committee fair, ref's wouldn't give team numbers, but only "If RedAbot did X" type questions. If something like this were in place, or if the refs had to go through more training and testing (I acknowledge that they do, but more might help a bit...), then we wouldn't have an issue.
MarySheridan
17-03-2008, 18:32
I read this about ten pages ago or so, but just to clear it up:
Woodie Flowers Award was awarded to Lonny Weissman, mentor of Team 668, The Apes of Wrath
Volunteer of the Year award was awarded to Dennis Jenks, mentor of Team 668, The Apes of Wrath
I would also like to note that thanks to Dennis Jenks, Team 115 and 604 are going to be splitting $25,000 to go to Atlanta this year thanks to his hard efforts.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.