Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Do you know if 2848 got called for a foul when 16 shoved them into the pyramid? By rule they shouldn't have since you can't be forced into taking a foul for anything except a G30. I'm just curious how the refs at Hub City called that.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I haven't had time to read this whole string, but I'll say that I learned that even teams that say they can climb for 30 (or 50) didn't at the Hub City and shooting frisbees four at a time is the best skill.

But like others here have said, even rookie teams were competitive and a ten-point hang is completely worth it.

Many videos of Hub City (for team 1108) at my youtube site.
[url="https://www.youtube.com/user/hrench"]

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

That was a huge hit if I've ever seen one. If you look at the picture they show a little later, 16's bumper comes up and hits them inside their frame perimeter. Nothing against 16 but if I was a ref and saw that I feel like I would call something.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Sunny - that happened in our match with you! :)
It was round 84 of the qualifications (great match, btw), and it was somewhere around the 1:30 mark. We were lined up against the back of the pyramid shooting when one of your alliance partners came up and gave us a nice firm tap in our rear end. I thought it was crystal clear that it was a foul - not sure how they missed it. If you have video of that match, check it out and see if you agree. We put up 54 points that round on 15-15 shooting, so we were majorly psyched in spite of the loss.

It was a great tournament for you guys - congrats on achieving the #1 rank and best of luck at Peachtree. I hope you guys make it to St Louis.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

There is no foul rule that applies to this situation.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

3.2.6.2 G29
Deliberate or damaging contact with an opponent ROBOT on or inside its FRAME PERIMETER is not allowed.

G29 does apply, depending on the severity of the contact.

Edit: The blue box appears to limit the impact of this rule to contact by appendages. Contact by bumpers may be a good candidate for a Q&A question.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

You sure?

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

My comment was not that G29 did not exist, only that it did not apply to this situation. A robot tipped while being pushed and their bumpers overlapped momentarily. Hardly deliberate, damaging contact.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Read your own quote:
High speed accidental collisions may occur during the MATCH and are expected. ROBOTS extend elements outside of the FRAME PERIMETER at their own risk; no penalties will be assigned for contact between two such extended elements.

16 had no such extended element. Their bumpers overlapped. It happens.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

That part of the quote had nothing to do with this incident, the rule just goes on to explain that if you extend something out there is no penalty for hitting it.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I know it's hard to tell from a still, but it sure looks like 16's upper frame is hitting the vertical that 2848's shooter is mounted to. Which is well inside the frame perimeter.

At any rate, I think the primary issue is that your initial post seemed dismissive of the whole category of G29 fouls. Since you acknowledge that they do exist, the issue boils down to whether athe few stills and video we have show some evidence of deliberate and damaging contact. I think we can file this under "Judgement Calls" and everybody can move on.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

The rule itself acknowledges that this type of contact may occur and is not a foul. The purpose of G29 is to make clear that the element must be purposeful and the damaging contact deliberate in order for there to be a foul. I do not believe I "dismissed a whole catagory of fouls." Since I wtnessed this contact myself, I was offering my opinion that it did not violate any foul rule.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

"There is no foul rule that applies to this situation."

I'm sorry, but that right there dismisses the fact that any rule applies to what happened. Rule G29 specifically applies to what happened, was it violated is a completely different question.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Watching on television, it seemed a way to eliminate the defensive bots would be to have, as we used to say in Minnesota hockey terms, a Derek Boogaard. An enforcer (a.k.a. thug) to push those guys out of way as well as score a quick 10 points hanging at the end seemed to be a good protection for two other shooting robots. This way, they could continue to pump in the shots until the end and still have the enforcer score a quick ten at the end. Of course, this strategy only works if you have a defensive bot against you and a driver who understands the rules for contact. If it is all offense or if there are climbers involved, the best that bot could do would be to push around any shooters and try to avoid the penalties until the last 15 to 30 seconds. That could still be a bit of a neutralizer even if they are short and could not block any shots.

As for being an enforcer robot as a rookie team, there is nothing wrong with that. It brought us all the way to the Archimedes finals in St. Louis during our rookie season of 2011!

Todd Hanselman, Mentor
Chaotech 3747, Mankato, MN
Winners of 2011 Lake Superior Regional, 2012 10,000 Lakes Regional
Runners Up 2011 Archimedes Division, 2012 MN State High School League Robotics Championship

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I have no knowledge of this interaction, but I have put up a Q&A question regarding inside-frame-perimeter contact from things other than "extended elements" for future clarification. It is quite confusing in fact, because G29 as written says the exact opposite of the purpose you ascribe (which I also think is the true intent):

<G29> Deliberate or damaging contact with an opponent ROBOT on or inside its FRAME PERIMETER is not allowed. [emphasis mine]

It actually says the contact (without referring the an "element" until the unofficial Blue Box, and even then not exclusively) does not need to be deliberate. It can be either deliberate or damaging, and needn't be both.

I suspect the Q&A will get a RAO (Reasonably Astute Observer) and/or a "we cannot comment on specific situations", but I figured it was worth a shot.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

What he said. Please consider communicating some of your internal reasoning next time. We are not mind readers, so it's extremely easy to take single sentence answers the wrong way.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

It stated my opinion that no foul rule applied here. It does not "dismiss" any rule.

G29 refers specifically to robot elements outside the frame perimeter which are purposefully used to cause damage to another robot. That rule does not apply here, if for no other reason than because 16 had no such element. Two robots came in contact while pushing when one of them tipped. If you would like for that to be called as a technical foul in your match, you may want to be careful what you wish for.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

We have footage of the match, but it focuses most on our machine.

It sucks that you guys didn't get that call. That was the hardest match all event.

- Sunny G.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

No, it doesn't. I refers to any contact inside of a robot perimeter. It then goes on to warn that when you have something that extends out you run the risk of it getting damaged because they rule does not cover extended pieces.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Gotcha. Typing is work. I promise to say no more than I actually mean, if you promise to infer no more that I actually say.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

It is silly to debate the content of something that is in writing. The rule and its blue box explanation speak for themselves. I don't think the rule applied to this situation, but that is just my opinion, which is all it ever was.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Well, that escalated quickly! I was just trying to express how the situation looked to me, not really implying that a foul should have been called. I suppose that wasn't the best choice of words when its still week 1.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

If you had a flexible tab that would have hit the pyramid as 48 was pushing you out, 48 would incur a foul! Small price to pay for a 30 pt climb. BUT...
With your hook up and then getting hit, that would a TF and a 30 pt climb
G30: Regardless of who initiates the contact, a ROBOT may not contact an opponent ROBOT contacting its PYRAMID or touching the carpet in its LOADING ZONE.
Violation: FOUL. If purposeful or consequential, TECHNICAL FOUL. If an opponent's CLIMB is affected, each affected opponent ROBOT will be awarded points for a successful Level 3 CLIMB.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

All correct. Although we should not dismiss what is in the blue box. It is intended to explain the rule's meaning and how it will be implemented. At any rate, it is all a moot point here, as this contact was neither deliberate nor damaging.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Agreed, that's why I've requested clarification as to intent wrt to the Box. Though I've learned not to expect too much clarity, I don't think it would be too much to ask for the GDC to give an up/down on whether G29 applies only or differently to incursion by extended elements versus the main robot. It's Q563 if anyone's interested.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Cannot see it from that angle. We were shooting not climbing, and still made the shots, so the hit was not "consequential" - I think that would make it the 3 pointer variety. It was enough of a hit to be very obvious to me, but we all miss things sometimes. It wouldn't have changed the outcome.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Getting back to the topic of the thread...

lessons not already mentioned:
- The condition of the carpet under and around the pyramid is terrible. Other teams with pickup mechanisms take note. If they are based on scooping the disks with a dustpan type of scoop, like ours is, expect problems. We nearly destroyed our pickup arm by catching it on a taped carpet seam. See this video at time 2:00. We attempted to avoid driving over the seams with the arm down, and paid for it when we forgot.

- We saw zero upside down disks on the field until the feeders began throwing the colored ones. We're glad we didn't spend time designing a disk flipper. We dedicated a camera to looking at the floor so we could avoid upside down frisbees. We will re-aim that camera to look into the robot to see if our hopper gets jammed.

- Even with disk pickup, unless defense is very heavy, running back to the feeder station for disks can be quicker than picking them up from the floor.

- Practice results in proficiency. I'm still in awe of how effective team 11's feeder was at loading their robot quickly. The technique he used and the skill he exhibited isn't something that just happens. It has to be learned and developed by practicing with field elements that match the real ones, not the facsimiles suggested in the team drawings.

- There is a reason why high school, college, and professional coaches sometimes scream at referees. Maybe if FIRST referees got chewed out when they blow calls, it might happen less often. These games are way too competitive, and way too much blood, sweat, and tears are invested by teams for us to just shrug away referee mistakes that change the outcome of matches. In all honesty, one lesson that could be learned from week one matches is that a strategy of risking G30 penalty points while playing defense pays off big time. By not enforcing the rules, FIRST is very effectively teaching high school students that it is better to break the rules than to be GP. All the pep talks by mentors about being Gracious Professionals, and how cheaters don't prosper mean nothing when FIRST allows rule breakers to win matches with no prospect for even appealing an obvious missed call. (OK, maybe this lesson has already been beat to death, but I just couldn't resist.)

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I do not understand this comment, please explain more.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

What I observed in both our practice, and watching a few webcasts:
-Disks are often scattered
-Many robots don't have mechanisms that just suck in the frisbees at the speed of light and index them perfectly without a little help from the driver.

The multiple changes of direction required and subsequent acceleration from near stop to pick up Frisbees from the floor in multiple locations can often lead to a slower time compared to the straight and practiced path that going to the feeder station entails.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Could you please specify? I saw plenty of human players stacking four frisbees at a time on top of the feeder slots for easy access, but was there more to the way 11's human player fed frisbees?

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Jeffy, I think the point that Cormier was trying to make was that, at least at FLR, defense was VERY heavy.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

11's feeder was able to get all 4 discs in within a matter of about 2 seconds. Their process was very streamlined. I'd like to say our feeder was the exact same way, able to get all 4 discs in within 2 seconds, except 11's faster drivetrain and shooter enabled them to take advantage of a fast feeder and make 4 runs. It's all about technique. Our human player has been practicing loading our robot since Bag day and has developed a stacking technique to make it work quickly.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I expected a shift to heavy defense, especially on Saturday morning when teams who just couldn't get their offensive capabilities together decided to switch tactics in the hopes of being a second-round pick. I wasn't disappointed--in spades!

...until I was disappointed by just how darned good 1126 suddenly was on defense!

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I seen them do this before at IRI in 2008.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

While I understand what you are saying, FIRST refs are volunteers. High school, college, professional, and sometimes even little league sports refs are paid. Screaming at the refs is definitely not how we want to tackle the problem of inconsistent calls.

We should be thanking the refs for volunteering, not shouting at them for missing a call.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Picking up frisbees was so unimportant, we removed our pickup mechanism. Which worked very well.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

If your students are learning that:
a) yelling at refs will get them a win,
b) it is better to risk penalties and break the rules,
c) the problem with cheating is that it leads to losing, and
d) the problem with c) is that it's incorrect,
then we aren't playing the same game. Hope I'm misinterpreting. Play hard, but always play fair, because it isn't ever about the win.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I know I'm beating a dead horse at this point, and i know they are volunteers, but to be a referee, it's an arduous process. You have to take a referee's test, get trained by FIRST, and have to have experience. Referees are volunteers, but because of the rigors of getting that position, I expect them to fully implement the rules. I will be angry when 2 elimination matches are blown by bad ref calls*. I expect these volunteers to be prepared fully to referee and call every foul consistently.

Trust me, i know what it's like to be a referee. While not on the same scale, i reffed for FTC local qualifiers. it's a tough job, but I spent at least 6 hours preparing for the job and made sure to call everything that I could possibly see, so the competition was fair. I expect every referee to be trained properly and well versed in the rules and any exceptions made in the Q&A.

*Our team could've done better in the match, and when I look back on it, that's certainly the case, but it still stands that G30 was not called once when it was infracted upon at least 3 times in one match, a climb that was legal was ruled illegal, and another climb that was illegal was ruled legal.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

What I learned from week-1 is that once again my son has been inspired to the level that he came home after the BAE Systems Granite State FIRST Robotics Regional Competition with the biggest smile I have seen on his face for a long long time. I am truly grateful for that.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Our human player practiced for hours and hours on the human feed station from the team drawings. Part of what made him so lethal is that he trained on the plywood one where he had no sight. Palmetto was the first time he got to use a real field, and it was like taking off a blindfold for him.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Where the carpet is smooth, the disks are optimally placed, and the driver and operator make no mistakes, picking up from the floor can be very quick. If any of these factors are missing, which is often, the number of hoppers of disks shot in a match drops by about one. For us, if everything went perfectly, we could pickup and shoot 3 hoppers worth. If there were problems, that dropped to 2 or 1 hopper.

When we tried going to the feeder station, even with light defense, we could load 2-3 hoppers. Again, drive team mistakes, or heavy defense could drop that number by 1 or 2.

One factor we did not expect was that at least one defender seemed to be targeting our arm for damage. They would back off when it was up, but as soon as it would come down, the defender seemed like they were trying to hit the arm. We expected some amount of consequential damage, but did not prepare enough spares for that kind of defense, even though the possibility was certainly foreseeable.

Since floor pickup and feeder loading seemed to be roughly equal in speed, (at least with our arm) we made the strategic decision to reduce the risk of damage to our arm by saving it for autonomous scoring. We would also use it if heavily defended when running back and forth to the feeder station.

The equation changes a bit if you have a very fast floor pickup mechanism, and/or have had lots of time to practice with it. That may shift the balance towards floor pickup.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Was anyone else (at other events) told that you cannot stack discs on the feeder station slides or low goal? Our Head Ref told us specifically not to, but it seems a lot if other events, and even some teams at our event, weren't. (I never saw any penalties called for it, and there's no direct rule.) It didn't overly bother me as we couldn't have taken full advantage of it this time, but Week 3 we should be able to. I hope they clear that up.


As a note, the 'arduousness' to become a ref this year is significantly down from 2012 (no training, just test and maybe an optional telecon). I point this out only because it's partly due to the difficulty of recruiting referees. Some events are short several refs mere weeks before game time. Occasionally refs are literally at their first competition. The process can only be as hard as the quota accepts. It's sometimes rough on teams, and I've been on the bad side of poor calls (I've also been on the bad side of yelled-at). There are some serious Week 1 problems this year. But yelling at refs is a good way to not have any left. Suggestion - if you want refs with more experience, volunteer!

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Smills, do you have any match footage of your human player loading your robot? I'm sure we can all learn from his style.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

We can't disclose all of our secrets :p

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Siri,

We had a long discussion about this at varying points on Friday night and Saturday morning. From what we could find, there is no rule that specifically disallows this, and the reason that we were given was that 'Stacking Discs could cause field damage'... Some point after that, there was mention of disc stacking being legal, or being clarified to be legal, but I don't remember if we were ever given a conclusive answer...

All of that being said, should you need to stack discs on top of either the low goal or the slot covers at your next event, I'd say to do it until you're told not to - at which point ask them to cite the rule that disallows it.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Blue Box, G29 "High speed accidental collisions may occur during the MATCH and are expected. ROBOTS extend elements outside of the FRAME PERIMETER at their own risk; no penalties will be assigned for contact between two such extended elements."

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I don't think Todd was trying to say that any rules were violated, just surprised at the amount of defense that was played against a floor pickup robot when the pickup mechanism is down. We designed a floor intake expecting to have some defense played against it. Our current iteration of it looks overkill, but we still doubt its rigidity against heavy defense.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

There were no fouls in that match at all. We got exactly what we expected in the match and even confirmed with the ref's before that being shoved into the pyramid by another team would not be our penalty.

As for 16 getting a penalty, they didn't and thats fine. They hit us, we hit them, it happens. Build your robots to take a hit and it doesn't matter.


We went into the match knowing full well we were going to loose, we just wanted to show other teams that it was possible to block 1986. As good as their shooter is from under the pyramid, their accuracy drops from anywhere else on the field. ( just like any other team which calibrates for a specific shot)

As good as 1986 is, I think they will not have such an easy run in Oklahoma, as teams learn how to defend elite robots, such as installing blockers at 60" to force them to leave the spot under the pyramid and shoot on the fly. The biggest advantage they have is that they are already performing at a high level with things like a 7 disk auto (which is awesome), but by week 4 others will have had the opportunity to study the game and mod their robots to adapt.



*edited to better reflect my options in a way that does not put down 1986. They are a great team with a great robot, and it was not my intent to take anything away from the team and their accomplishments. I was just pointing out, from a lessons learned standpoint that even the best of teams will have to deal with teams that learn more about how to play the game as the weeks roll on.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Just so I'm clear, I am not advocating that yelling at referees is in any way acceptable at a FIRST event. It goes against the principles of being a GP, and is against the rules, as well.

G18: All Teams must be civil towards other Teams, competition personnel, and event attendees.

Unfortunately, the process that FIRST has established to protest incorrect match outcomes, is fatally flawed. It should not be acceptable that the outcome of a properly presented protest to a documentably game changing bad call should be that nothing is done because, "I didn't see that." or "It's too late. The field has already been reset."

We need a better process by which we can all stay civil, but game changing mistakes can be corrected. We all understand that referees can and do make mistakes. Those mistakes can and should be corrected so that those who play by the rules don't lose to those that break them, by accident or otherwise.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

We were surprised too that no one picked up on your blocking idea and used it on us in eliminations. Your team did an excellent job of strategizing ways to keep the score down. Teams that emphasize the climbing aspects of the game should be very interested in lowering the teleop shooting so their points matter more.

Saw another interesting strategy where the defensive bot sat in the opponents protected feeding zone, and the loading bot couldn't get to the zone to draw the penalty, much less load discs.

We definitely had a sweet spot to shoot from, although by the time Oklahoma rolls around we should have about 11 other equally sweet spots to pull up to. We have all of the KC regional to practice with in week 3 before heading to Oklahoma in week 5.

Just noticed 2848 is going to be in Oklahoma too. Our scores were higher playing together than playing against each other. Hope to see you on our side next time we meet. :)

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Maybe in elims, the final score (including penalties) should be confirmed with the captain of each alliance before the field is reset?

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

This is about what we got as well, Dustin. The field damage argument seemed an odd one, but I never heard even a rumor of a reversal. I wish FIRST had a standardized mechanism for announcing reversals/clarifications at events. (I've seen everything from pit-to-pit ref visits, in-queue statements, coaches' meetings, to pit announcements...) We'll see if the Q&A turns up anything useful. Otherwise it's a question of asking forgiveness vs permission. Given the importance of it though, I hope they standardize.


In other news, the GDC has answered the G29 clarification Q&A.

A: As [G29] states, the intent is to penalize "deliberate or damaging contact with an opponent ROBOT on or inside its FRAME PERIMETER."

Looks like they're sticking by it--G29 applies any time a robot damages or deliberately contacts a robot inside it's perimeter (correct conjunction is "or"; extended elements not required). High-bumpered bots, be careful in your pushing matches!

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

The refs were calling this wrong until saturday when we asked about it. While you can't get a regular G30 because the other team is not in contact with the carpet, you can get a Technical Foul under G30 because of the intent of the action. (while I disagree with this interpretation of the rules, thats how they were calling it at Hub City after we specifically asked if we could block like that)


Oh yeah, the team will be there.....with a few mods already in progress. We hope to be on your side of the field also.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I don't see how G30 can possibly be interpreted to give a foul if the team is not in contact with their feeder station carpet. Simply put, I think the refs called this wrong if they are giving fouls only for blocking teams' access to their own feeder station.

Intent is only in play if the rule is violated, and the ONLY way to violate the rule is if they are in contact with their loading zone or pyramid. If Blueabot gets to Redabot's loading zone first and prevents Redabot from contacting the loading zone carpet, G30 simply does not apply, because neither of the conditions can be violated, intent or not.

TLDR: If neither of the rule conditions apply, you cannot receive a foul for violating those conditions.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

The violation comes with teams working together to obstruct the flow of a game. AKA sitting in the opposing alliances safe zone in front of their feeder station.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

This is an iffy call, and it's a G25 penalty. Greg said specifically that they were assessing technical fouls under G30 for the situation he described, which is what I think is wrong.

G25 cannot apply unless the alliance is working together to do this (eg. both feeder stations are blocked by opposing robots). G25 applies only to the actions of multiple robots (plural), so a single robot preventing access to the feeder station should not be penalized under G25.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

See the following Q&A:

https://frc-qa.usfirst.org/Question/...eeder-stations

-Clinton-

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

That would be a G-25, but has no bearing if it is not multiple robots working together. Would also have no bearing if the field wasn't blockaded. Their is an alternate location to get discs from.

Edit: Beaten to it.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Touche.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

I found the Q&A I was looking for to support my original statement, FWIW:

This is in regards to G19, but it general supports an official ruling that if the terms of the rule have not been violated, no penalty can be assessed.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

A ref at the Hub City Regional told our team that G30 did not apply unless you were climbing. Hopefully this will be discussed.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

Then that ref was objectively wrong.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

After having watched a fair bit of footage from week 1 I would not be surprised if we saw the "Scorched Earth" Alliance selection strategy in one of the championship divisions this year. There is a sufficient level of competence within the overall field this year (and with the added addition of the Wild Card I can only assume that the depth of the championship field will be that much better), that when coupled with the large divisions at the Championship it will not be surprising to see favorites within a division looking up at a couple other teams with a better draw.

I also believe that alliance selection strategy will be crucial to success at any event this year. I would not be surprised to see a 6 7 or 8 seed win in many events depending on the relative drop off in the field. Dominant robots can still control regionals ala 1986 and 610, but at events with a solid but not dominant top tier upsets may be more prevalent.

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

By "Scorched Earth" do you mean a less desirable #1 seed picking other captains with their first pick, expecting them to say no, and preventing them from then choosing each other?

Re: What we learned from week 1
 

That is correct similar to Newton in 2006. (No offense intended to the number one seed of that division, it was a smart strategy but according to the stats they may not have even been top 16)