San Diego: Tech Foul in Finals
 

I saw the last (second) finals match in the SD regional. The blue alliance won that match, and hence the regional (having already won F-1), because the red alliance got a tech foul that was announced as something like "human player deflecting opponent's ball with their ball". Could someone please explain? I thought a deflection was not a possession, so the human player didn't possess the opponent's ball. I didn't see what happened, so I can't judge it for myself.

Which rule was violated? Anyone know anything more about this 'game changing' foul?

If this happened the way I imagine, then it is clear that when a HP sees an opponent's ball headed for them, they'd better do anything possible to avoid touching it (with a hand or their own ball). But not step out of the box. Seems that could be difficult, but I intend to warn our HPs!

Re: San Diego: Tech Foul in Finals
 

Please look at G32--that was called out on the webcast. The announcer also stated that the red ball was used by the human player to deflect the blue ball--which would indicate a definite violation of G32.

This is entirely separate from a robot Possessing a ball--Possession, in that sense, is a property that only Robots can have.

Re: San Diego: Tech Foul in Finals
 

As a lead member of the strategy team of Team 2485, I can tell you exactly what transpired (or at least what we could gather from the video and a number of eyewitness accounts):

Our human player was attempting to inbound the ball to 987. When he threw the ball to the robot, it bounced away, and ended up effectively "trapping" the Blue Alliance's ball. This was ruled as in violation of G32—"Strategies employing TEAM member actions to deflect opponents’ BALLS are not allowed"—incurring a technical foul on our human player. Similar events had occurred earlier in the tournament, and had been uncalled.

Suffice it to say that we were exceedingly upset by this ruling; but at the same time, we recognize that once the refs determine something to be the case, that's kind of the way it goes. It's a tough, tough pill to swallow, and one we're definitely not convinced was necessary, but at least we'll get another chance in Vegas. We just wish the final outcome didn't have to be decided either way by a controversial call.

EDIT: Just to clarify, there was no intentional—and certainly no "strategic"—deflection, possession, or contact of any kind by our human player with the blue alliance's ball.

Re: San Diego: Tech Foul in Finals
 

I hate seeing events end like this. I'd personally hate the ruling whether I was on the winning or losing side. I'd rather see the call made right, even if it made me lose. Glad to see your team being incredibly professional about a tough loss.

Re: San Diego: Tech Foul in Finals
 

The W.A.R. Lords appreciate your sympathy. Again, while we're certainly extremely upset with the result of the call, we're almost more concerned with the fact that the scenario arose in the first place: that is, that a match, particularly one as crucial as the final, was decided either way by a controversial refereeing call. It seems ironic to me that a robotics competition would come down to human error, which is precisely what the field of robotics attempts to prevent... :(

Re: San Diego: Tech Foul in Finals
 

All who read this,

While the foul calling is somewhat subjective, this is a VERY difficult game to ref and yes, when you watch it knowing what is happening, your view is swayed by previous perceptions. Have someone impartial watch it after being explained the rules, and they would likely have come up with the same call 50% of the time.

Teams will learn from these lessons and apply them to future actions, just as pro athletes do every game.
Keep in mind these are not NFL refs who spend there lives getting to know their respective rules.

Sometimes the call goes your way, and sometimes it's against you. Just remember, winning is a minute goal of first, otherwise we would have high-paid refs as any professional sport, it's the journey that counts.

John Hayes
Mentor for the WARLords Team 2485

P.S. Based on my GoPro video, the ball was being inbounded to 2485 when 330 tried to pass our robot to get into scoring position and the ball bounced off the blue ball that was within the passing robot (incidental contact, ie bad luck)

Re: San Diego: Tech Foul in Finals
 

Just saying, so will a coin flip.

I think the problem with this game isn't quite so much that it's difficult to ref (although it is), but that a refs mistakes can be so costly to the teams on the he field. Almost no teams can make up a 50 point deficit, especially against a good alliance. If a ref makes a mistake or what some would consider a bad call, it's essentially game over for any alliance which wasn't going to blow out the other alliance anyway.

Fouls exist to get people to play the game fairly. The current fouls seem to punish teams for stuff which may or may not be within their control. Imagine if tech fouls were 500 points. People wouldn't be any less likely to commit them. There's just no good reason for the fouls, especially tech fouls, to be this high.

Re: San Diego: Tech Foul in Finals
 

Like I said, bad luck.

Let this be a warning that when throwing in from HP, you better be going no where near the opposing alliance, just to be safe.

Re: San Diego: Tech Foul in Finals
 

OK, sorry about using the wrong terminology (re: possession) - you're right, that is for robots.

I guess what I was confused about was I didn't see, or hear any reference to, any "strategy" or "intentional" action, so I didn't think about G32 (which I thought required deliberate action). Since I didn't see any deliberate action (nor did I remember the ref using the word "strategy" or "intentionally" or '"deliberately" or anything similar), and didn't happen to hear the actual rule number (if it was called out), I thought the ref was referring to an accidental deflection (like the blue ball accidentally bounced off a red ball the HP was holding, getting ready to inbound). I guess that was what it was, but it happened AFTER the HP let go of the ball - not while s/he was holding it, getting ready to inbound. To me that seems even MORE off base, unless the HP deliberately threw the red ball toward the blue ball in an apparent attempt to move it. It is so hard to watch everything at once, but I didn't think I'd seen anything like that (or heard it called out during the match).

Anyway, having gotten it into my head (for the robots) that one team's ball accidentally bouncing off another's was OK, I was confused by the call. Now I see that it was apparently just a bad call. Bummer.

Re: San Diego: Tech Foul in Finals
 

[quote=David8696;1355606]As a lead member of the strategy team of Team 2485, I can tell you exactly what transpired (or at least what we could gather from the video and a number of eyewitness accounts):

Is there video posted yet of this match?

Re: San Diego: Tech Foul in Finals
 

[quote=davidfv;1355695]I was just about to post it.

Re: San Diego: Tech Foul in Finals
 

Here is the video I recorded of that match. Tech foul in discussion occurs at about 2:30.

http://youtu.be/vp_kB8LRUg0

Congrats to 1266, 330, 4583, and 4486. 330's driving in the semi-finals and finals is among the best I have ever seen in first.

Re: San Diego: Tech Foul in Finals
 

I have no intention of blaming anyone. I am posting what I think I see. I also have no idea what the outcome of that match was.

What happened was very odd. The way the ball was thrown was directly at the blue alliance robot. It could appear as both a poorly timed inbound to a robot up the field, or possibly a way to mess with the blue alliance robot.

Re: San Diego: Tech Foul in Finals
 

I'd love to see 330's driving in the semifinals again. They really put on a clinic of how to get around defensive bots - hopefully that last semis match was recorded.

Re: San Diego: Tech Foul in Finals
 

The way I saw it is that the human player (knowing if we didn't score FAST, we were going to lose) tried to inbound it to 2485, who was moving in his direction, quickly and let them pick it up while it was bouncing. 330 drove into the path of this semi-desperation throw, but clearly the human player could never have thought the ball would be able to knock out 330's ball.

Another important note: The rule cited (G32) is worded "Strategies employing TEAM member actions to deflect opponents’ BALLS are not allowed." Two things seem to jump out at me here:
1) The fact that instead of G31 ("Strategies employing TEAM member actions to inhibit ROBOTS are not allowed."), they chose to invoke G32, implying that they felt that the human player's actions were against the blue ball, rather than the robot. Were the action interpreted as an attempt to mess with 330, they would have invoked G31 instead.
2) The term "strategies" is extremely important here. It means that unless the action is a clearly intentional attempt to deflect the opponent's balls (it could even be interpreted as requiring repetition), the foul should not be called. This has been shown in such situations as the Week 1 regional when a robot intentionally tipped another robot, but because it was clearly not their overall game strategy, but instead simply "taking an opportunity", it was considered not to be a foul, as G27 is worded "Strategies aimed at the destruction or inhibition of ROBOTS via attachment, damage, tipping, or entanglement of ROBOTS are not allowed."

It seems to me that this technical foul should not have been called, especially not to cause the end of a regional (we were down 1-0, and had we won there would have been another match).