Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Just hypothesizing here, but: it might have had something to do with the optional driver station update (it was strongly recommended but not mandatory).

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

To clarify, it was not our system that was malfunctioning. The problem stemmed from driver station updates. If one team's driver station was not fully updated, the entire alliance would lag out. We found this out during a practice match and immediately fixed it, however, other teams did not and continued using the old version. Moral: CHECK FOR UPDATES!

As to the malfunction, our robot had mechanical jams in a few of the matches. We installed guards to prevent this, so we knew this was not the case. Not to mention that our climber was not working.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Were the FTA's alerted to this?

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

First of can we stop bashing the Refs. I do not want to have a MOD close this thread. Second the Refs are doing the best job that they can. Just to let you all know all most all of the refs have close to 7-10 years in FIRST EACH, is not like its their first time at an event. Like some one said we are only Human, we cant see everything at once and we do miss things but teams need to learn and move on. Yes blockading is a tough call to make on the field but when it is called there is a reason behind it. And As to the Ops video post of the match that would be a tough call to make but there is NO way that any video replay would or should over rule a head Refs Final call. And this was in the semis so there was no more of giving teams a break when it comes to fouls.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

So what you're saying is that not you but somebody else on your alliance had the older version?

Having had issues with this previously, do you think this is something that should have been checked as soon as your alliance was formed? It's not like you didn't have a lunch break to confirm that and have your alliance partners install any necessary software updates.

Also, how was this avoided in your elimination matches before semifinal 3?

And is it normal for part of a control system to malfunction while the rest continues to work perfectly?

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

I definitely consoled my team as well. We found solace in the Industrial Design award. We're fine. I just wanted to hear the community's opinion on the matter. I'm sorry if I seemed to be whining.

The fact that teams should account for bad calls is unacceptable. That's comparable to NASA having to account for changes in the laws of physics.

I'm not saying that video proof would be the end all of a dispute. I just want it to be used. Period. The fact that it's being completely ignored bothers me tremendously.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

The laws of physics don't change from day to day due to human error.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Yes, FTA was made aware very early on.
The update issue was not of concern during eliminations. We checked everything. The problems stemmed from something else. We don't know what.
I'm just putting out a warning to you guys. This was a problem for some qualification matches until we started verifying all of our alliance members.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Essentially, all of a sudden with what was basically the deciding match of the regional on the line, you had a mysterious failure of unknown cause in your ability to score?

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Haha. It sounds so fishy. But yes. We checked everything and were extremely distraught. The day was full of ups and downs.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Mods will close the thread if we don't check our passion at the door of the thread that is as touchy as this, so let's step it down a notch. FIRST is a passionate event, but that does not always warrant fiery discussion that may come off poorly. I can assume you are a referee, and I would not say anyone is going out of your way to tear you or your volunteering kin down. I will say it is good to have a healthy discussion on rule interpretations in the hope that the game evolves properly over the 8 weekends it is in-season, be it rules, strategy, robot execution, and overall event quality. Some of the rules are left up to interpretations the Supreme Court could not easily decide on, but that's how it is.

I hope you weren't meaning to come off as mildly condescending here.

Let's all take a deep breath, read this, sleep on it, and try again tomorrow.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

I do agree with the OP on some point, particularly with the occasional horrible penalty call. I empathize with your team because I remember a time when I felt the rules screwed my team out of a win that would of sent our alliance to the semifinals.

I also agree that the best teams aren't always on top. I occasionally see teams I did not expect at the top of the rankings, or even elite teams that somehow are in the bottom half of the rankings. Take 254 at the San Diego Regional. They finished with a 5-5 record, but were picked by the #1 seed even though they struggled throughout the event. And on the other side of the spectrum are teams that are ranked near the top, but are declined by many higher seeding teams. I agree that the rankings can be a little messed up, but generally they're pretty good and almost always the best teams form the best alliances and they will usually win the events.

Also, keep in mind that FIRST really is doing the best job it can do. And given that the competitions are almost exclusively run by volunteers, I think FIRST is doing a pretty good job. And if you don't think so, just look at other competitions such as in college and professional sports, and you'll know FIRST is doing something right. College sports are dominated by a few teams, and it's very rare other teams rise above the rest. Every regional is worth watching in FIRST because there's always a few outstanding teams that aren't recognized outside of the region. And while our volunteer referees and judges aren't perfect, is our system so much worse than the systems in professional sports? I'm always hearing how the greatest players are favored by referees, and the blatant cheating that participants get away because of how difficult it is to objectively call fouls and penalties. And in every sport I can think of, the perennial playoff contenders are almost universally hated. Great teams in FIRST are universally respected, and we actually cheer for winners as often as we cheer for the underdogs. And think of all the smack players talk about players from other teams. It really is amazing how a bunch of high school students act more maturely than these "professional" athletes.

So I agree FIRST has problems, but I can't agree that it hasn't been doing a good job for the most part.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

Yes, FIRST does a very good job. It got me to where I am today. The volunteers are amazing and you can never thank them enough. Yes, the attitude of FIRST is pretty great. However, that doesn't mean it cannot greatly improve. You should always be seeking to improve. I wanted to call attention to a few things that I noticed that could/might be improved. I wanted to see some explanations for both sides of the argument in all cases. If something is not possible, that's fine, I'll accept that. I just wanted clarifications on a few thoughts.

The thing for me with powerhouse teams is that they inspire others. I always drew inspiration from 254. I always wanted to and still do want to become more like them. If they shine in competition and seed high, that gives teams a clear goal. But if teams like that are not in the top spots, what message does that send?

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

It sends a message that even the best have an off event now and again. They have their issues like the rest of us. And, there is hope that maybe we can be asking them to join our alliance instead of the other way around.

Incidentally, I'd like to point out some other, really annoying ranking systems.
2001--besides the 4v0, IIRC it was just the scores of the teams--if your colored ball was on the goal you got 10 extra points.
2003--details escape me, but I remember it being some function of scoring.
2010--When Coopertition Score was the biggest driving factor of the standings, things got "interesting", including a "planned" 6v0 match where the loser shot ahead of the winner in the standings.
2012--The bridge points affected an awful lot of rankings. 254 couldn't get a good ranking at one event because for one reason or another nobody went for the Coop Bridge with them.

This year, it's back to the good ol' win-loss-tie system, which like a republic is the worst system around except for all the others.

Re: Some thoughts on rules, refs, and ranking
 

A long post justifies a long response.

Luck will always be involved. Time will always be a constraint. Unless a better, viable alternative emerges, this is how things will work.

The district model also requires a more expansive program, even more experienced and efficient volunteers, and stronger outreach than NYC offers. The unfortunate reality is that despite efforts to do so, we haven't been able to introduce NYC to the district model precisely because we don't have the resources to make the district model viable here.

Because teams shouldn't be ranked just by individual performance, but how they contribute to an alliance. That match you mention? We were on the receiving end of those penalty points; we won that match 10-165 because of those penalty points. Our very next match, we were partnered with the team that incurred those penalties, coached them so that they wouldn't do so, and went on to win that match as well.

Moreover, individual performance isn't exactly something you can judge quantitatively - e.g. how do you compare offense with defense? 3137 played fantastic defense throughout eliminations and were critical to our wins, but they didn't earn our alliance any actual points.

IMO, its intent is to encourage scoring over blockading - that is, to encourage active gameplay and discourage anything that inhibits active gameplay. Maybe it's not a "fair" rule, persay; certainly, it is very subjective precisely because of its ambiguity, and makes defense harder, but it's part of the game. And when the game itself prevents you from executing a certain strategy, you work around it.

It's not exactly a new rule:
This is an inevitable problem that will arise when making judgments with respect to ambiguous rules - that is why there's a head ref, so that there can be someone to bring a close to the discussion.

You aren't the first, nor you will you be the last person to argue with this policy, which FIRST explicitly lays out in the manual:

If the footage you use to prove your point offers a misleading perspective of the situation, should it count?

This isn't something our Head Referee decided on the spot. This is an enduring FRC-wide policy precisely, because as Sam explained:

That he even listened to you instead of turning you away, as he easily could have done, is gracious in itself.

And you're wondering what the lesson learned for your team was? The lesson was your build season. You guys pulled yourself together, harnessed your resources, and put together an amazing robot. During both a strategy meeting yesterday and a celebratory dinner tonight, the consensus was that you guys had the most competitive robot there. There wasn't a single person at New York that wasn't impressed by your performance. The way you got there - the little things you did, the changes you went through, the experience you gained - that's what you come away with.

We consider our Lunacy robot, Michael1, to be the best robot we've ever built, even though it didn't go to CMP (which was partly because of abstruse FMS issues specific to our programming that caused us to lose matches) - and the lessons we've gained from Michael's season have driven our success as a team. Virtually everything about how our team operates today - our build criteria and process, the importance we place on driver practice, the effort we put into scouting - is driven by the lessons we learned from Michael's year. And as the cliché goes, those lessons we learned that year - about the importance of simplicity, of implementation, of efficiency - extend not just to FRC but life in general.

That's the kind of thing you walk away with.