Week 2 Analysis
 

Hello CD community. After Week 1 we saw some major changes. So what have we noticed after Week 2. And what changes do we hope are made after Week 2. Some of my observations after Week 2 are that fewer balls are bouncing out of the goals after they have been modified. There are still a lot of teams that haven't been reading the rules and are still drawing up a lot of technical fouls. This game is still really physical, and the teams that are doing well are the teams that are nailing all their shots during the autonomous period.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

from our regional I learned that having your teams know the rules is crucial. Also, one of the best strategies I've seen so far is having one robot purely defense and another blocking and your best scorer trussing and getting 2 assists.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Observed week 1 and competed in week 2. There were a few noted differences.

Fewer auto balls were missed. At the Southfield district tournament. There were usually 2-3 balls on the field after auto. At the Gull Lake tournament, the numbers were drastically smaller. Teams figured out that it was worth more to start cycles right away.

A heavy and fast offense beats defense, every time. Not sure if it was a difference in the teams competing at Gull lake as opposed to Southfield but teams at gull lake had a lot harder time defending against fast moving, fast shooting bots. We played our matches as offensively as possible, only playing defense when our part of the assist was done. Even then, we were covering our own alliance rather than stopping the opposing aliance. This proved to be an effective strategy.

Tech fouls were few and far between. I don't think G40 was called once. Teams are a lot more cautious now.

Robots must be able to hold onto balls. If simply turning flings the ball off your robot, find a better way to hold it.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

In the state of Indiana, it is possible to receive a tech foul for your robot coasting over the field boundary after power is lost at match end, leading to a qualifying loss.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Triple assists are where its at. 3018, 2052, and 3692 won the Lake Superior Regional even after 2052's shooter broke in semis. The triple assists were worth so much that the trussing that 2052 did prior to the break was not even necessary. Even 3018 gave up shooting high a couple of times just to get the 31 point low goal score.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Referees are having a difficult time crediting possessions of balls. They aren't being consistent with declaring possessions at all. Example: not getting credit for pushing a ball meaningfully, but getting a penalty for inconsequentially bumping an opponents ball.

90% of pedestal issues seem to be related to the referees not submitting their scores in a timely manner. It generally seems that this is because they were too busy assigning penalties, or they simply don't look down and confirm that their score was submitted due to the dynamic game. 10% of the time pedestal issues seemed directly related to dead-ball declarations.

We were on the short end of a pedestal issue at the Crossroads Regional. After a cycle of ours was completed, the pedestal failed to illuminate for at least 12-15 seconds. We felt it significantly affected the outcome of the match and warranted a replay, and contested it appropriately. We awaited a final answer, and with involvement from HQ, a replay was not granted. We respected the decision, and moved on and immediately began preparing for the New York City regional.

My only hope is that this issue is fixed for week 3 and beyond. Due to the nature of this game, I strongly feel any significant delay of pedestal illumination directly affects gameplay with only one scoring object on the field at a time. No, we're not going to make a giant storm about this. Referees are human, and field software is written by humans. There are going to be mistakes. As a community, we just need to learn how to deal with these issues. I know we can, we have he smartest people in the world on our side.

I look forward to what this game could be. It definitely has a huge amount of potential to be a fantastic game. I just hope we actually get there and aren't still deciding matches at the Championship Event on cycle delays and seemingly overbearing penalties.

-Nick

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Despite some of the problems experienced at Groton and the whole weekend going not as expected for 125, I still truly think that despite all the haters, this can definitely be a great game. Matches showed this. Even with the number 1 and 2 seeds eliminated in quarterfinals, the strategies made by the lower seeds just made the game incredibly exciting, and the 4v7 finals were very entertaining matches.

Qualifications may be uninteresting 75% of the time, but honestly, I feel that way about most games. Eliminations have incredible potential to be exciting, and I can't wait to see how solid/great Championships elims will be (especially considering there should reasonably be a flawless field crew)

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Some of these tech foul calls are getting ridiculous, but please tell me this is a joke. Either way you've got me curious about the possible context/circumstances...

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Context - we won the match, until we didn't.

Circumstances - our telekinetic powers of post-match robot deceleration were at the cleaners aka the Force was not strong with us.

The Crossroads head ref must have LOVED us camping out in the question box - a frequent vacation destination for us all weekend long. ;-)

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

I think Travis is being coy because he doesn't want to be accused of murdering a ref.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Here's the video of Crossroads Q5, which clearly shows the "infraction" at match end - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFhSMpfk40k

Also, here's video that clearly shows a pedestal lighting delay near the end of Q24, a five point loss that a truss would have erased, had we been given the time we deserved to execute it. I believe you can hear the people recording the video (the good folks at 2252) commenting on the situation, but I can't be sure. The opposing alliance was given plenty of time to execute their winning truss shot, eh?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_dioSONuRo

Add two wins to our total, and we're 7-5 and looking at a potential top 12 seed, and that doesn't even include the other transgressions meriting a question box visit throughout qualifying.

GDC - FIX YOUR BROKEN STUFF. Your shortcomings DO have a SIGNIFICANT impact on team standings.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

I couldn't tell conclusively from the Q5 video which infraction you might be referring to. Did they call pinning on you? Or did the head ref call an HP violation?

As for Q24, there was definitely a noticeable amount of time before you were able start the next cycle.

I'm sorry to hear that you guys were impacted like many others this weekend. At least you can be thankful that you still have two more events ahead of you.

Great looking robot and I'm sure you'll make a strong showing at the next two.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

I believe this is referring to the end of the match where their robot coasts after they are disabled and it coasts so much that it goes over the field wall.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

I was referring to the last second out of bounds tech foul call on our partner. Check the near right of the screen.

We personally were called for one (debatable) herding tech foul the entire weekend. Our partners, however, were not so lucky. And our opponents got away with a few things in some matches that we and our partners were called for in others. Inconsistency just bugs the heck out of me.

Thank you for the compliment - we've got lots to improve upon in the offensive execution area, responding to self-generated issues, as well as insulating ourselves from externally-generated blar. Our drivetrain is quite the equalizer, however. It tends to get us further in the elims that we realistically should get. :)

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

:eek:
I definitely spent some time watching this. Something was rather soothing or elegant about the rhythm. If you can put this kind of practice to work and get a routine going on the field, I'm confident you'll perform well.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

You mean 4306? They were clearly already outside the boundary before the end of the match. The buzzer sounds simultaneously with the BASE of the arm contacting the field boundary.

The thing that really caught my eye was all the G28 fouls committed by the blue alliance yellow bot in Q24. I see G28 fouls at 1:32, 1:35, 1:46 and, most flagrantly, 2:30.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Actually we're looking to add more staccato and random variation to that particular rhythm, which can sometimes be interrupted by the opposition. We tend to play at events where free-flowing offense is kindasorta a rarity. ::safety::

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Sorry, I don't see any delay. Note that the red pedestal isn't actually visible in the video.

For red:
- HP has red ball at :16
- Low goal :39
- HP has ball :45
- High goal 1:22
- HP has ball 1:27
- Low goal 2:17
- HP has ball 2:25

For blue:
- Low goal :58
- Pedestal lit 1:00
- Low goal 2:01
- Pedestal lit 2:05

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

48 looked awesome in the elimination rounds....consistent refereeing was indeed a concern. Good luck to 48 Elite in the rest of the season... you owe me and Nick a dinner at the Keg LOL...just kidding. Come up in the summer for a back-yard steak Travis. Just bring the Boston Lager. ;)
FIRST_Parent.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Specifically, how did FIRST improve on the things they set out to? I wasn't at an event, so curious to hear from those that lived it.

• Upper Goal Bounce-Outs
  
• Fouls
  
• Refs
  
• System Issues
  
• Balls Being Returned to Field

Link to Bill's Blog Week 1

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

At 2:30 they hit their own alliance partner...

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Upper goal bounce outs- no longer an issue. That sheet of lexan did wonders.
Fouls- as far as I saw (no stats to back this up) the number of fouls seemed to decrease (especially G40) but the timing of big fouls was prevalent. Lots of finals matches were marred by tech fouls.
Refs-at least at UNH, they seemed more alert and aware of the rules than week 1, but I can't speak for other events. How assists are being called still seems to be different from event to event.
System issues- if you're talking about pedestals, there were still some issues at multiple events.
Balls being returned to the field- I haven't seen as many issues this week regarding this. Events I observed had volunteers who knew what to do.
Keep in mind these are just observations from the event I competed in and the 3 events I watched (UNH, GTRW, Groton, and San Diego).

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

:) You are right. I was so indignant at the hit I didn't notice the bumper colors were the same...

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

So blue's pedestal lit far more quickly on average? Interesting....

I consider 8 seconds to be a ridiculously excessive amount of delay waiting for all human and computerized decision makers to verify that yes, indeed, the big colored ball went into one of the big colored goals. Many people are reporting 10 seconds or more of delay? Is ball scored? Yes? It takes 1 second or so to make this realization? Then turn the $@#$@#$@#$@# pedestal on. Whether ref or FMS caused, FIX THE PROBLEM.

The fun part is red's pedestal lit three seconds after the already 8 second delay had occurred just prior to the last red hp pickup, so the total delay was 11 seconds. The coach of the hp just said screw it and told him to pick it up. ZOMG SHOULD HAVE BEEN TECH FOULED FOR THEIR EGREGIOUS IGNORING OF THE BROKEN SYSTEM THAT TAKES 20,000 YEARS TO REGISTER A SCORE.

FIX. THE. PROBLEM.

Here's a thought - the pedestal light be damned. Station a single volunteer at each pedestal whose sole responsibility is to watch for alliance scores and yell GO when it's ok to pick up the ball. Does that cost too much in free t-shirts and meals to employ?

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

As someone that watched almost every week 1 and was at Central Valley week 2, I'll give my 2 cents.

Bounce outs: I saw no ball that passed completely through the goal opening and came back out.

Fouls: the G40 change did almost nothing. One of our scouts was watching only penalties, and every G40 or G35 he saw was due to a field fault or a minor incursion that didn't compromise safety in any way. Most matches, qualifications and eliminations, were determined by what penalties the refs called and what they didn't, rather than the actual gameplay, which was incredibly dissapointing.

Refs: are still being asked to do too much. So much wasn't called (including a frame perimeter incursion in our first elimination match that crippled us for the rest of the tournament) and matches were being decided by what the refs were willing to call. I don't think the refs can physically call everything without 8-10 refs (one for every robot and ball in play). Incidental contact with an opponent's ball was called as herding waaaaay too often, and frame perimeter violations were hardly called on robots that were designed without this in mind.

I have to respect the head ref and FTA at Central Valley, though, as they must've had at least 2 people in the question boxes after every single match played, and they always kept their cool and were respectful and helpful to the best of their extent.

System Issues: the pedestals weren't working more often than they were. Delays of 10 secs were common throughout, and the general response was to deal with it. The worst issue our scouts noticed were pedestals lighting up and then turning off, which gave that alliance a G35 almost every time it happened, and they had no means of arguing otherwise. If improvements happened this week, I shudder at thinking of what week 1 teams had to suffer through.

Balls being returned to the field: seemed to improve quite a bit. There's obviously a delay, but most of the volunteers were ready for whenever the ball came at them and knew how important it was to get the ball to the human player as fast as possible.

In general, slight improvements, but there's still a long way to go before we see Aeriel Ascent not decided by technical fouls, pedestal issues, and inconsistent refereeing.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Watching the pedestal lighting thing at Hub City, it appears there are a few different causes for the delay. A few times, one of the autonomous balls left the field and was not returned as it should have been. Other times it looked like the referee didn't score the ball as scored.

When the pedestal doesn't light, and the ball is entered into play, usually under direction of a referee, it appears the FMS still isn't aware that the ball should be in play (doh, the pedestal didn't light!) and the ball then gets no assists recorded, as the alliance cycles it.

This appears to be a situation that coaches are going to have to pay lots of attention to during matches.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

I watched a ton of streaming matches. On Friday night I switched between four streams so there was always a match playing from about 5pm until the last west coast matches were over.

- Bounce outs: The goal redesign completely fixed the bounce out problem from the rear bar. I saw maybe two bounce outs the entire weekend, and those were pure flukes.
- Fouls: The insane number of G40 penalties was cut way, way down. It was like they went from making that penalty the highest focus of ref attention to making it the lowest focus. In my opinion, it dramatically improved the match results.
- Refs: I don't know that they got any better at refereeing robot-robot interactions. One of my personal pet peeves is uncalled G28 fouls. I didn't see any improvement here. On the other hand, scoring seemed to be smoother. I guess if I had to prioritize the referees attention, I would prefer them to focus on scoring goals and assists first, and catching illegal gameplay second, but it still rankles me to watch match video and see teams getting away with illegally aggressive defensive play. As long as the neglect is applied equally to all, it's probably a wash.
- System issues: Couldn't say. I only watched matches in play, skipping delays.
- Balls being returned to Field: From the matches I saw, this was almost instant. In fact, robots throwing over the truss to the sidelines didn't really need to make the throws catchable by the HP. Even if the HP missed, the ball was promptly delivered by field staff. Big cudos here for much improvement.

In short, after working through the normal week 1 bugs, the game is now being played like we expected it would be.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Nope. The red pedestal is not visible in the video, so it is not possible to tell if either pedestal lit more slowly than the other.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Everyone is aware that the pedestal only lights once a referee "completes" a cycle manually, right? To do this they have to select who made what assists, whether there was a truss shot, and where the ball was scored. Once they submit that information to the system, then the pedestal lights up. If they are busy with a penalty, counting down an instance of pinning, etc. then they won't be able to "complete the cycle" as quickly as if they were just keeping track of scores.

At Hub City, we had the guys at the scoring table keeping track of matches to compare against what was entered in the system. Whenever there was an issue with a ball being introduced into the field incorrectly, a tablet froze, or there was a field fault, we replayed a match.

I know that people are unhappy about how quickly the pedestal is lighting up, but you also have to understand that it's a completely manual process!

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

I did not think this was the way it was done... I am pretty sure the refs just plug in the pocessions for each robots in whichever zone and the FMS calculates the points based on the highest number of assist points. Also truss points aren't assessed when the goal is scored but when it goes over the truss. I would also assume that he ref would click the score button and then go back to entering the foul after. Just my knowledge of the system as I think I know it

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

I'm pretty sure you two are using different words to describe the exact same process.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Basically. What I'm trying to get across is that there isn't really any automated way to light the pedestal. It all comes down to how much the refs are expected to keep track of this year.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Sounds like, as countless referees and casual observers have been saying all along ever since they learned how this system was intended to work, we should SPLIT THE SCOREKEEPING AND FOUL KEEPING into separate volunteer processes. Separate everything that isn't required to be tracked as part of the cycle - referees handle that - mainly fouls - these can be entered whenever. Scorekeeper refs focus solely on assists and scores. Truss/Catch can be handled by either - pick your poison - I'd choose scorekeeper refs in order to remain consistent.

So if I'm not mistaken from what I've read, the foul entry screen is on a separate menu page from the scoring menu on the AB PanelView touchscreens? Well bite the bullet, call up Allen-Bradley and buy some more of those suckers, and create separate HMI's for dedicated foul panels. I'm guessing the system can handle additional HMI's (Ethernet based IO??). Map the new HMI foul screen objects (is the HMI panel an RS View app?) to the same master controller IO that currently drives foul calculations. Hide or delete the foul screens from the original touchscreens. Or do the opposite if the foul tracking features need to physically remain where they are - separate the scoring menu into a separate HMI and application.

Provided you speed up the processing of final cycle information with more eyeballs and parallel HMI input, the pedestal and any remaining light up delays introduced by the laggy system can still be ignored. Decouple the pedestal lights from the system and drive them with human operated switches run by dedicated pedestal refs at each end of the field. They can track and signal for any HP early removals.

If these troubles continue...if you CAN'T fix this, because you embedded this inefficient blar too deep in the system to excise, then admit you screwed up, and issue a partial event fee refund to every FRC team for being forced into a flawed competition experience that diverged greatly from the product you originally marketed to teams.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

They key word for me in week 2 refereeing is inconsistency, especially when it comes to G12 and G28. What is a foul in one match isn't a foul in the next, over and over again.

The refs have an impossible job. Way to much to do. For example they have to look away from their area to determine possessions for scoring meanwhile there are infractions happening right in front of them.

Scoring must be taken away from the refs!

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

I agree with Travis.

There were good improvements with rule changes from week 1 to 2. The problem with the high goal design was fixed, too. Now we need to address the root causes of overloaded referees. If it's true that the referee software requires paging through menus during matches, that's just crazy. Fix the problem.

Is the fix hard? Do it anyway. The FIRST community is probably the least tolerant of "bugs" in the system of any tech'y enthusiast group. We build robots in six weeks. FIRST has had 1/3 of our build season to fix the software. Get it done.

<Slipped back into last-week-of-build-season mode there for a minute.>

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Probably, I just read his as the refs were having to plug everything in after the goal when I was just trying to clarify that they do it all along- pretty much the same.

I think it is easy to see the refs are completely overworked as there are just wayyyy to many aspects of the game to keep track of at a time and such tiny things (like a wheel being over a line) that they have to pay attention to while looking at all the robots on the field and trying to hit an unresponsive/slow tablet. Pretty frustrating stuff

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

I disagree - the refs have to make judgement calls on zone possessions.

They just need to split the work further. Or stop being so hard on G40 and move it to a yellow/red card system.

-Nick

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Why can't a trained storekeeper do that Nick? Rules of possession are not difficult to understand or enforce. Refs should just be watching for infractions.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

To clarify, there are different roles for refs depending on the side of the field they are on.

All refs have the ability to assign fouls.

One set of refs looks for crossing the truss/field during auton. The other set of refs is looking for balls placed on the field (pre-game) and then when and where they are scored and HOT or not.

During the match the refs are assigned an alliance to SCORE. They click on the robot #### in the blue box if that team POSSESSED the ball in the blue zone, etc. They then can click the TRUSS and/or CATCH buttons for the given alliance and indicate, by pressing HIGH GOAL or LOW GOAL buttons, when the ball is scored. Then an END CYCLE button appears. I assume this is when the pedestal is lit?

I have not reffed at an event yet, but this is from the ref training manual on the touch screen system. It seems easy enough to understand and follow.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Does the manual explain the need for an "end cycle" button after the ref inputs that the ball has been scored? Seems repetitive to me.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Not explicitly.

Some of things mentioned and that I take away from the section is that anything except the "END CYCLE" button can be undone via an UNDO button. I ASSUME the intent was to give the ref a chance to verify the data before hitting END CYCLE (read as: score the points). The other note attached that emphasized is that to be sure the ball is completely through the goal and not going to bounce out before hitting END CYCLE.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Possessing your own ball is a judgement call that affects assists and therefore scoring.

Possessing your opponents' ball is a judgement call that affects fouls.

Therefore your scorekeepers must also be your foul callers. We just need more eyes and/or simplification of their other tasks. Too many assists have been missed this year (to be fair, there are also a lot of cases where teams think they should have gotten the assist, but they never actually drove their robot entirely into a unique zone).

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

yes it's true. There is a button at the very bottom of the screen titled "Fouls" (or something similar) which toggles you to another screen entirely. You are presented with 4 boxes, 2 red, 2 blue, 1 for tech foul, and 1 for fouls. Each has a simple "+" and "-" button to let you add fouls. When finished you have to click the same button at the bottom which now reads "Match Play" (or "game play").

It's unfortunate because there is likely some type of scoring or assisting going on while you entering those fouls.

I was a ref for a week one event and i know that early on i was delayed 5-10 sec in ending a cycle. When there are 4 robots smashing into each other literally 3 feet from you it's hard to look away. In that instance the team with the ball managed to slip away while i was in the process of calling a tech foul for G28 on another team and put the ball in the low goal. Later on in the day i had a similar scenario and in that case i waited to enter the foul until after the ball had been scored. So referees becoming more comfortable and familiar with how the game is played makes a difference.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

As I mentioned to Travis at the competition and have posted elsewhere, the big problem is giving the refs too much to do and dividing their attention. A simple solution is to have 6 scorekeepers, one watching each robot. They simply record possessions and scores. Only one robot to watch. This frees refs to look for and record only fouls.

As for the Q24 match Travis posted, as someone who was there watching for an uninvolved team, the podium stayed unlit for enough time for people in the stands to notice and start commenting.

Side note, thanks for posting the Q5 video Travis. In that match our code had high and low gear mixed up in autonomous, but we had no video of it. I want to use this as a reinforcement reminder about the dangers of not checking EVERYTHING about your autonomous code.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

I don't use the panels until Friday, but from the training, I really don't see why the pedestal can't light when I check High or Low Goal rather than when I hit End Cycle. I feel like this would help a lot in terms of delays.

We certainly need more than 5 people to handle entering G12s, G28s, G40s, G29, G26-1, all the other fouls, assists, and scores. But remember that veteran refs are calling possessions that they see differently. If it's inconsistent while dipping into (presumably) all available veteran referees with everyone trained and certified, is adding more 'umpires' (refs+scorers) making things better or worse? I honestly don't know, but the logistics are difficult enough to make me wonder. Remember untrained field reset in Week 1.

Without having actually VC'ed for FRC, I'd have to doubt whether a simple solution that involves every remaining event in the world finding and training 6+ more volunteers is actually a simple solution. That's not to say it's not a good or even the best solution, but maybe there's a way to split the tasks differently so it's not 6+. For instance, would it help to eliminate the foul screen for refs entirely, and just radio fouls to just one volunteer at one foul screen? I vaguely recall doing something like this at a previous year's event.


Separately,
Coaches are definitely watching this, but I have yet to manage myself or see anyone actually get something changed. Has anyone? In Week 1, we experienced 2 separate admitted field faults against us that we could not get replayed. I have no idea how else to do in this situation. What are other coaches doing? We lost 1 match by 4 and the other by 1. We were 6-6-0; the lowest 8-4-0 was 11th seed, 7th captain. I know how you feel, Travis.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Don't thank me; thank our Ohio friends the Mavericks of 2252. I believe they are actively uploading full field Crossroads match videos to YouTube as we speak. Seems like it will take them a few days.

https://www.youtube.com/user/MavericksTeam2252

So the pedestal lights upon an end cycle confirmation, and it turns off following the initial possession entry for the next cycle. Can ANYONE give me any justification whatsoever for that blasted light to not be controlled locally by a "pedestal ref" holding a toggle switch hooked to a power supply, lol. Please don't tell me the light inside is donated and has to be controlled by Ethernet I/O or some such nonsense.

You can get rid of all delays related to the pedestal and the field by severing the lighting completely from the cycle process. Pedestal ref turns it on when the ball is through the goal (presume lights on the opposite scoring goal turn off once the end cycle is confirmed - PRETTY OBVIOUS SIGNAL TO TURN THE PEDESTAL ON). Turn it off once the HP inbounds and the first possession/assist light turns on. Note any early pickup infractions and communicate to nearest foul-calling ref. It's not like they'll be busy doing anything else for a bit once the HP picks the ball up....

You will have pedestal lighting times of sub 1-second if you simply have humans do it and make it the only thing they have to track during the match. [More gameplay. Less blar.] <-- Spotlight worthy, no? Make it happen, people. :-P

Young Gregor tells me some refs forget to hit the END CYCLE button. Why not make the screen or the button flash like a Japanese anime or something to prompt them to do it? I know those PanelViews have such object flash capabilities built in.

Thank you to actual referees for detailing this process - I think full exposure is helping drive further discussion.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

I will say that the lights in general seem to have some lag (i've seen several instances/videos of light lag especially in auto). If you were relying on the lights over the goal going off, which are controlled by the same "end cycle" button, i'm not sure if that really solves the issue.

At the event i was at we ended up adding a manual redundant system to make sure the pedestals were working properly. The ref would put their flag up horizontal and wave it once they pushed the end cycle button. There was a dedicated field reset person there watching specifically for the Ref to make this signal. If the pedestal did not light they volunteer would give the team the go ahead to take the ball (I don't think we had any more pedestal issues once we started doing that).

From my experience when properly working, the pedestal lit up in 1-2 sec after hitting the end cycle button.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Mr. Hoffman,

I would have to disagree with both of your statements.

First the issue with the technical foul at the end of Q5 the video does not clearly show that the robot coasts out of bounds. I would say that the video confirms that the robot was out of bounds. The robot was out of bounds before the match ends and coasted further out of bounds. The match ends between 2:31 and 2:32. The robot that you point out is clearly out of bounds between these two times. The most reliable person in this situation to trust is the ref that was standing right in front of the robot in question.

Second issue being the pedestal lighting at the end of Q24. It appears that there is around a 2 second delay for the field to turn off the assist lights around the goal which should be around the same time the pedestal turns on. It takes around 7 seconds for a referee to finalize the score. Ideally it would take 9 seconds from when a ball is scored to when the pedestal light turns on. We all know that referees have much more to look at then just scoring. So a delay longer than 8 seconds is not out of the ordinary.

If you would like to nitpick the end of the match I see multiple infractions. Looking at end of the match it appears that the pedestal does not ever light up. I say the pedestal never lights up because the lights above the driver’s station do not turn off. For some reason the human player comes around and inbounds the ball. When the human player is inbounding the ball he steps out of the box there for a 10 point penalty. Assuming the human player took the ball off the pedestal when it was not lit that is a technical foul there for a 50 point penalty. The ball illegally taken off the pedestal is also in bounded which is a technical foul so another 50 point penalty. A grand total of 120 points in penalties. Even if there was a last second truss for 10 points the match would not have been close.

Even with the delay I do not see a need for a replay on qualification match 24. The delay was not long enough.

The fact of the matter is that the few complaints were from qualification instead of finals is fantastic.

There were some mistakes made at the regional but all in all it was a great event. Thanks to all the volunteers that helped out including field reset, referees, judges, and everyone else that assisted with the regional.

One more thing for everyone to think about is that F.I.R.S.T. cannot change too much for how regionals are scored and played. It would not be fair to teams that played the first few weeks.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Thank you for confirming that an unacceptable delay caused by an overworked referee and a suboptimal field control system is a common occurrence. Makes me feel all warm and squishy inside.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe the human player wanted to actually play the game instead of waiting around for previously-mentioned overworked referee and suboptimal field control system to take pity on him.

Dang, the refs sure were blind to all these transgressions. It's worse than I thought!

I'd love to be the person who gets to define what level of suck the system has to reach before a team is credited with a pity re-do. SUCH POWAHHHHHHHHH.

Oh there are probably at least 3 teams that would beg to differ with you but I won't mention who they are. One posted in this thread earlier.

Hear that, everyone who's yet to play - I'll be saving a nice and toasty seat for you in FRC hell!

FIX THE PROBLEM.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Consider the situation with an above average alliance on the field. Let's say they manage to score 5 balls in a match. With your "ideal" delay, that means this alliance would spend 45 seconds of the match waiting for the pedestal to light up. That means 32% of the match would be spent with an alliance waiting to be allowed to enter a ball into play. This is simply unacceptable. Both the teams and the volunteer referees deserve better.

Thankfully, the pedestal delays I've witnessed in Ontario have been significantly shorter than "ideal" delays witnessed at Crossroads.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

At least your scoring refs HAD flags! At IE, we only had two flags, so they went to the foul-callers on the far side of the field. Our manual redundancy? The head ref and/or the FTA hauling tail to the end of the field to tell the team to pick up the ball.



BTW, I reffed Week 1. I've since put my name on the "available" list for a Week 4 event, seeing how overworked the refs were in Week 1. (I guess I'm a glutton for punishment.)

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

As someone who lives and competes in a region who hosts a single regional of 63+ teams and only allows for 8 matches a year, I like to employ the dollars per match when comparing our regional to other regionals/districts when discussing a desire to change competitive format. (Yes, in Virginia, a team could say they paid $625 per match... how lovely). Using this idea here where you spend 32% of matches waiting for the trashcan to glow, you are spending $1600 to stare at a translucent white trashcan and not go insane thinking about the action you are performing.

At Alamo in our 6th match, I remember running a few cycles where the lightup time was at least 5 seconds after the ball definitely cleared the goal. I wasn't actually counting but I did turn around and politely asked the trashcan "WHY IN GOD'S NAME AREN'T YOU LIGHTING UP" twice before it actually lit. That was 15 seconds of match time, or 1% of total match time granted. Still, that's paying $50 for one team to watch a trashcan illuminate itself in one match. The object itself had to cost no more than $50 to even make. It's stunning, to say the least.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Huh....I look at it as spending other people's money to be entertained for a long weekend. It makes it more fun. Our robot on the field is just a small part of it.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

For me it comes to this. The GDC has created a game that is really close to being one of my favorite games ever. The game play itself has been exciting to watch and the way you play the game has at least as much influence on winning as the quality of your robot. So make the scoring and refereeing quicker and more consistent.

And again on the subject of "Changing something now would be unfair to the teams who played in week 1 or week 2" being a reason not to change, I don't see it. Everyone played under the same system in week 1 and week 2. If the system changes for the better, the teams who play later will all play under the same system. We played our only regional in week 2, and even on Saturday I was thinking "You know, if they just added people to track each robot for possessions and scores and had other referees to call fouls this would be a much better game." I certainly wouldn't want to say "Things could be better but since we won't benefit no one else should."

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

If a regional had enough volunteers to create "referee's assistants" to do the data entry portion it would allow the refs to follow the action uninterrupted. Standing field-side the game is fairly easy to follow when you aren't looking down every 10 seconds. No additional training, no software changes required, slightly more people field-side.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

It's unacceptable across the board, and its burden discriminates by strategy. Adding 9 seconds to the end of each cycles means that I could be preforming the incredible feat of scoring 20-point cycles three times faster than an alliance scoring 50-point cycles, and still lose the match because I'm waiting a 'reasonable' amount of time for the light to come on. This is nutty. Field speed should not be dictating strategy anywhere near so heavily. 6.4% of match time per instance.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Woah guys, what if that was the secret plan to get us more interested in multi assist cycles rather than quick individual cycles(tinfoil hat theories):D

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Someone mentioned to me last night that there seem to be plenty of instances of teams having power cut to their bots 1-2 seconds before the buzzer sounds (or perhaps the buzzer sounds 1-2 seconds after the match ends...).

I've not seen much if any discussion on this (maybe I'm not looking in the right place). Does anyone have any firsthand experience with such a scenario happening to them? Is this actually a thing?

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

This happened in a bunch of matches at CVR. I believe it is related to the hot goal timing issue; the field clock display and the FMS clock are somehow getting out of sync. We have ample video evidence that robots are getting enabled before the field clock ever starts moving.

Hopefully both issues will be fixed via field software update.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

There's been some of this discussion in the Hot Goal Timing Issues thread: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...5&postcount=16

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Hmm one Crossroads mentor I just spoke with said he observed the same type of behaviour in some matches at CR.

Wonder if that happened to our post-match rolling outside the field boundary tech foul alliance partner dudes. My guess is they were going to turn right to align themselves with the ball for a late pickup, but power went kaputt early and they coasted over the wall before they could turn.

Reasonable doubt, wooo!!! I learned that by watching Law and Order. :rolleyes:

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Scoring a goal and ending the cycle doesn't just light the pedestal. It also clears the posessions from the tablets of the refs tracking that alliance and the "assist" indicator LEDs (both the ones on the goals and the ones in the driver stations). For all this to happen seamlessly, it all has to be linked through the FMS.

It's not as simple as you make it sound. There are many situations where a ball through the goal doesn't - and shouldn't - cause a lit pedestal: an illegal goal, for instance, or clearing a dead ball that got freed.

And there are cases where lighting of the pedestal should be legitimately delayed. Balls don't count as scored if they're touching an alliance bot, so if the scoring robot is still reaching into the goal and contacting the ball, the ref can't end the cycle yet even if the ball is completely through the goal. Also, one of the requirements to score is that the ball remains in the goal, so the ref can't count it as scored until it's clear that the ball won't bounce out.

Even if a ref was only worried about monitoring scoring, they'd still need to be aware of what's going on over the entire field, and there could still be perceived delays in illuminating the pedestal.

Overall, I think the system we have takes some practice to use quickly, but it's pretty good. I understand that Week 1 events reported a system lag, but the updates since then seemed to have dealt with that issue. At GTR East, when I could, I'd try to check how quickly the pedestal would illuminate. Every time, it would already be lit within the fraction of a second it took to raise my head and look after hitting "end cycle".

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

At Crossroads there were some very noticeable delays in the pedestal lighting up. Q24 that Travis posted a link to was just one of several I noticed. Most of the time when it happened I saw a referee working on their tablet. They have to toggle between screens and sometimes that delays things. Particularly if there is a foul just before or after a goal is scored. The delays are a problem, but the inconsistency is an even bigger issue. In Q32 at Crossroads we had a 7-8 second delay once, but the other alliance had one over 15 seconds. That necessitated a replay. Which is why I still think the best solution is spreading the responsibility around more. If there were one person watching each robot for possessions and scores I believe we would see fewer errors and delays. The other referees can concentrate on fouls. It is not just as simple as assigning more people, you would have to change the FMS to allow this.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

I'm not suggesting any of those functions be severed from the FMS; just the pedestal light.

I like the low tech flag method mentioned earlier, combined with a manual pedestal light. Referee signals somehow that end cycle is complete (heck who needs a flag - they could just put their hands up in the ay-ahhh like they just don't cay-ahhhh...whatever). Pedestal attendant/ref/drone/whatever then turns the dang light on. Due to the overt and flamboyant (jazz hands???) action of the scoring ref, the pedestal attendant/ref/drone/whatever doesn't have to guess what scoring ref is thinking re: any of the situations you mentioned above.

Canada must be a magical fairyland of FMS functionality and wonderment! :)

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...c_ekZaS7U/edit

^ This document compiles content from many people’s posts on key subjects from http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=127313 and http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...=Week+Analysis
(Week 1 Analysis up till the beginning of page 28, and Week 2 Analysis up till pg 5). Team 1389 made this compilation to learn from others' opinions, observations and questions about tournament play so far. We are happy to share this document with other FIRST teams in the spirit of gracious professionalism.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Tavar, 2 points.
great idea to consolidate this mountain of commentary.
use message numbers instead of page numbers - not everyone shows the same number of messages per page.

Re: Week 2 Analysis
 

Thank you, edited those in.