FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

http://www3.usfirst.org/roboticsprog...inst-the-Rules

Hopefully, everything can be fixed before actual matches start at most events tomorrow.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

I would rather replay a match than have it scored wrong because a pedestal didn't light up. In fact, if a pedestal doesn't light up within a reasonable time (5-10 seconds) I think the match should be immediately stopped and replayed.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

I agree 100% so do we have another ref to watch for this? Hum, more ref's great idea, we need them.

Okay all kidding aside, the delay(s) in FMS is playing havoc with this years game and putting many at wits end. What will help is software changes in the FMS and of course more refs.

With all the problems I would sure like to replay week 1 at it almost seems like we are the testing ground for the game.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

Speaking of issues, does anybody have a feel for whether incorrect scores were less frequent in week 2 after they increased the referee numbers and shifted focus to scoring over calling fouls? I think the incorrect scoring was the biggest issue in week 1; getting credit for only two assists when an alliance actually made three assists is a pretty huge problem. It's also a huge issue when an alliance doesn't get credit for all of its autonomous scoring.

(Yes, I realize that three robots can possess the ball and still not achieve three unique robot-zone pairs, so some of the perceived scoring errors were not actually errors)

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

I distinctly recall there being comments on the FRC Blog. Wonder why those got turned off...

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

It looks like they were turned off starting with the post November 22, 2013:

http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...Adds-Additives

All posts before that still have comments enabled, that one and all after it don't have comments. I don't recall ever reading why comments were turned off - maybe it was just too much work to moderate and reply to the comments?

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

Didn't they also say that 'Frank Answers Fridays' would return when build season started? Well...

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

The interesting thing is that in 2006 it became "in vogue" to call a cascading timeout to help your opponent finish fixing their robot. FIRST outlawed it the following year, presumably since it contributed to blowing event schedules.

2007 CD Discussion

Brando's got a great point too.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

My sense is that it's become expected in final matches, not so much earlier in the eliminations.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

They are on for me. Maybe you are special? :]

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

This is why I didn't like that Frank made the post the way he did - he's only contributing more towards it being an "expected" action to give up a very valuable resource, when your opponents may have brought the problem upon themselves. I'm not saying teams shouldn't do it, but...

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

They were off when I looked. I even checked a half dozen other posts. They WERE off. Apparently they've since come back on.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

So maybe the other Frank reads your posts and you really are special? :confused:

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

Looks like they are back, I loaded the blog post earlier where they did not appear and then I hit refresh and boom, comments!

I suspect they comments were turned off due to kickoff and because they wanted to push users to the Q&A.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

Well they did use their time out before the 3rd match of the finals and it was a serious hit from one of their robots that caused the damage that needed to be fixed. So the time out was going to go to "waste" if it wasn't used at that point and while you may not be able to say that the damage was solely their fault they certainly played a part in it.

As a mentor for one of the teams that benefited from their use of their timeout it certainly looked like it wouldn't really hurt them. In the second match we scored fewer points during the entire match than they did in auto and only won due to foul points. However for that 3rd match our alliance got our act together and started doing full 3 robot assist cycles and frankly played the best match that they had played together.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

I think the concern (at least for me) is if I am an alliance captain and an opponent breaks down without a timeout after, say, Finals 1. I would really want to save my timeout because you never know when a DSC could decide to fry itself or whatever, and I hope I wouldn't be considered a jerk for holding the timeout.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

I agree with you completely. Those details were missing from Frank's post, though.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

I think all teams involved with a situation posed in the blog need to know/understand that it is up to the alliance to make the decision about the timeout. And it is their right to make what ever choice they want to. The people in the FRC community need to understand that there may be more to the situation that people don't know about. If someone were to choose not to give the timeout then that should be respected and not taken as being UN-GP. For the people who may assume that are the ones being ungracious. I personally hope that all teams would give the timeout but I would be fine and respect them if they didn't.

Note : I use give instead what the proper term is because I don't know how to phrase it.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

It is nice to hear they are making strides to fix the issues with hot goal and pedestal timing.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

This is still happening at the UC Davis regional and I assume everywhere else.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

One of the things we've been doing in the Northwest for Girls' Generation and BunnyBots is playing by IRI rules where there are four robots per alliance, not just three. That means you have a built in backup. Championships will run the same way this year. What we do, though, is not allow timeouts at all. That makes it more likely the backup robot will play and keeps things moving.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

Can we get confirmed reports of happiness or blar from other events?

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

It may have been an issue for others, but for us pedestal timing has been pretty good for us.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

I know pedestal timing is still being reported as an issue from GKC.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

From the few times I could watch today, and in testing last night, at Escanaba there is minimal delay for the pedestals. Sometimes it lights up almost immediately after the ref pushes the end cycle; sometimes it takes 1 or 1.5 seconds.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

Groovy. Now we just need to make sure the refs push the end cycle button on time (and not 15 seconds later, after the match ends...).

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

Pretty sure pedestal delays are still a serious issue. Our team's second match today looked to have a delay of around 30 seconds. A ref and field reset worker eventually physically gave our human player a different ball. Our ref then told our student that if the student could watch the video we took and tell for sure that there was an issue then he would consider taking action. After the student confirmed the issue, nothing was done.

In the same match there was also some assists that failed to get counted for us, but that is just human error and wouldn't have made a difference in the match.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

Dallas overall went well with very few pedestal issues. Some, but only a couple.

The main issue is not correctly assigning assist points.
I saw 3 matches today that didnt award 3 assists whenever the last shot missed the high goal and rolled all the way back. When a robot drove back to get it and score, they only awarded that high goal shot vs. having the full cycle assist points.
It was corrected once when our alliance questioned it and the announcer even verified it with the head ref.
They also didnt initially call an assist where an inbounder threw it on a robot who spit it out from their intake roller a few seconds later. :confused:

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

Travis,

I know that you are upset over the pedestal issues, but comments like this make you sound like a 5 year old having a temper tantrum.

Maybe, instead of bashing the volunteers, you might lead the charge and work to get a groundswell of volunteers to help the refs?

hmmm? Maybe that would help ... instead of bashing those that are doing their best under difficult circumstances.

Just a thought.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

Perhaps for some, their best isn't good enough?

While I respect in general what volunteers bring to the table at each event, and I know in particular a referee's job can be difficult; what I do not, can not, and will not respect is repeated demonstrated ineptitude at doing one's job, especially when it is to the detriment of numerous paying customers in attendance. Mistakes here and there can be accepted; however, repeated infractions that affect single teams are inexcusable. Is it not a natural expectation of PAYING CUSTOMERS to expect referees to learn from their mistakes and make adjustments to their methods such that these mistakes are not repeated on a regular basis?

It is exceedingly silly to me to observe numerous documented cases where goal score entry is delayed by 10 seconds or more such that teams are ABSOLUTELY CRIPPLED IN THEIR ABILITY TO PLAY THE GAME, especially when these oversights occur late in close match situations.

Pardon me for not skipping through the GP daisies and blindly accepting such things repeatedly happening to multiple teams at a competition.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

Ref mistakes are one thing. When they are consistently detracting from the playability of the game? Its completely different.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

Whole heartedly agreed. The volunteer badge is not a magic talisman against criticism. The only way situations will improve is if problems and issues are brought up and actually addressed. All the good will and wishes in the world won't fix things if the actual problem is the person doing the job. The only fix is to address things with said person and replace them if they can't perform the task.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

I actually don't blame the refs, despite that its their mistakes causing the problem.

The game design this year has given the refs a nigh-impossible task, resulting in a high degree of error from the overworked refs.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

While I agree that the volunteer badge should not be protection against criticism, I believe just complaining without action is useless diversion. My hope (by my previous post) was to spur action.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

I usually try to stay quiet in discussions like this, but I feel the need to address this:

If replacing them is that easy, take on the roll of volunteer coordinator and do it. See how easy it is. Referee roles are the most difficult to fill because of the demands placed on people in that position, this year more than any other. Each year there has always been a shortage of people signed up to referee, typically because not many people volunteering their time want that level of responsibility. It's very much a thankless job, when every call and action/inaction is subject to the scrutiny of potentially thousands of people.

It usually takes weeks of active searching and solicitation to recruit the base number of refs just to make the event happen. I'm not saying that justifies mistakes being made, but if the alternative is an untrained reallocated field reset person to act as a warm body to fill the role, or at worst, no one at all to hit End Cycle, how is that any better?

To the most critical people, all I can say is step up, volunteer, and prove you can do better.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

^This.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

I guess when I stop making any mistakes myself....then I will start complaining more about other people's mistakes. Especially volunteers...

This my new mantra. I have certainly been guilty in the past....

I do think that constructive comments can be valuable but I know that if I were a volunteer referee in a brand new game I would certainly not be able to get everything absolutely correct and I know for certain I would not see everything

I used to work as a paid referee in the past with long established games and I know I made mistakes from time to time. This was after being a player myself for years and the being professionally trained and tested. I also know that the perspective as a player and a referee is quite different. It made me a better player after I was a referee.

Good luck to EVERYONE on the field

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

There is a huge gap between expecting perfection (I do not) and expecting competence such that mistakes are minimized, learned from, and not repeated (I do).

I am seeing a LOT of repeated, glaring mistakes, with little being done to correct them. Quite a few mistakes are occurring in situations where FMS issues are irrelevant, when the action is occurring less than 10 feet directly in front of an individual.

Does the FMS system make it harder this year for a referee to do their job? Unquestionably.

Are some quality referees making more mistakes as a result of the above? Undoubtedly.

Are there sub-par referees out there who are unqualified for the role, either due to lack of skill or lack of preparation/training, whose mistakes are being magnified exponentially as a result of increased scrutiny upon this game? Undeniably.

I believe event staffs should prioritize "competition-critical" volunteer recruitment and training (and retention) over many other aspects of event planning; however, it seems many are burdened with the need to chase down enough sponsors for the event to even exist. It is unfortunate that anything so critical to the "team and spectator experience" could be an afterthought at any competition. One wonders if Manchester couldn't invest more to assist events in addressing this glaring need?

Also, for the if you don't like it, volunteer yourself crowd, I have a simple answer - NO. Volunteers are being stretched to and beyond their limits by a system in need of fundamental change. Dumping more volunteers into that system (especially johnny come lately's who are likely even more inexperienced and ill-prepared than those who signed up ahead of time) isn't going to solve anything. If you wish to direct your attention toward the people who could and should help fix the "competition experience" problem, affix your gaze toward Manchester, NH and collectively speak your minds.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

This seems to be your primary thesis. How, specifically, do you think it should change? Your very next sentence asserts that adding more volunteers does not solve anything, so you must have some idea in mind for what these fundamental changes should be.

Also, my understanding of the system is that volunteers are assigned to specific roles by local leadership (Regional Directors and the Regional Planning Committee), not by Manchester. Unless your proposal for fixing the perceived volunteer issue is to centralize all detailed Regional-level planning in NH, I am not sure how affixing your gaze towards Manchester will help in this specific instance.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

That attitude has nearly erased the sympathy I had for your position.

If you're going to refuse to put yourself in the position of those you are complaining about, and especially if you don't propose a solution beyond "they need to do better" and "something must be done," your complaints become mere noise.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

I have known Travis for quite a few years now. I understand were he is coming from. He also spends countless hours at events with his team and others making them the best they can be. He has even come to event without his team just to help other teams. Is he a volunteer? Sorry Travis, he is. Just not in the official event status.

I believe that what he wants are volunteers that rise to the challenge. Ones that spend extra hours making sure that they know their responsibilities and strive to be the best in their role. Is that asking too much? This is a fantastic program with fantastic people. What we need to do is encourage mentors that are just watching from the sidelines during competitions to become involved. I personally clear all of the volunteer roles that I take with the mentors of the team I am with. They are either more that willing to get rid of me or willing to sacrifice a bit to hopefully make the event better. I am still available for the team if needed but volunteering at the event keeps me busy and out of our pit area.

Choose a job at an event that you can contribute your skills to and volunteer. It is a great experience and a new challenge. I am not pointing a finger here at you Alan but at all mentors in FIRST.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

I think one of the problem that Travis is getting at is that we are going into Week 4 and FIRST has yet to come out and address the pedestal problems or come up with a fix that works. Even from the start of scrimmages there was a known problem so its not like these issues have just come out of the blue they have always been an issue. There has been a mixture of reasons to why pedestals aren't lighting up of referees not seeing because too much is happening on the field, touch screen delays/bugs, entering in penalties during a score which again detracts from watching the field, and reported software bugs that it was input correctly but the pedestal just didn't light up.

The worst part is that while penalties are one problem of the game that FIRST has slowly been addressing this area has not and it is critical to a game. FIRST made a game where one ball can be used by three robots at a time and that's great. The fundamentals of the game have been setup to deliver a different but good game. However the process of scoring and getting a new ball started is just flat out unacceptable with teams being delayed by 10+ seconds. Then there are teams who are given replays for these issues and others who are not.

If volunteers are doing the best they can to try to deliver this game to teams but its not working then this needs to be put back on FIRST in a serious manner. If Week 4 goes by and the pedestals still are an issue there needs to be an alternative system put in place using humans to override a system that does not work. This is similar to the manual counting of frisbees after each match because the automatic system did not work and was later replaced by a few volunteers behind each alliance wall with a computer to enter in scores. This year we have gone through 4 weeks of competitions with a faulty system which is completely unacceptable (by FIRST not the volunteer who is just doing the job they were told to do).

The system was already going to have slight delays as a referee has to see that a ball is scored and then enter in the data on screen taking a few seconds here and there. The best method is there should be a referee next to each pedestal that tells human players when they can grab a ball (allowed once the ball is scored in a goal).

This is not unrealistic. Yes life is not fair however in life if you can't deliver on your promise to someone you do whatever is in your power to make it right. I would hope FIRST would do the same for teams.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

I don't really understand why the field can't use a photobreak sensor array to detect the ball crossing the plane of the alliance wall and automatically score it high or low and relight the pedestal.

The refs could still have to hit end-cycle (to capture those last second possessions), but the next cycle beginning needn't be delayed while that happens (the human player is going to take 2-3 seconds to return the ball to the field anyway).

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

How would this handle the following situations:
- Ball scored in the wrong goal (I've seen this happen more than once!)
- Autonomous ball scored during teleop while there's still at least 1 other ball in play
- Ball passes through the goal without qualifying as a scored ball (for example, going in on a truss shot)

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

Well, the system already knows how many auto balls must go through.

It would need to deal with the ball not really being scored scenarios somehow though.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

Ball 1 enters Line break sensor is now tripped while that ball is passing through.

Ball 2 enters. Line break sensor is still tripped from Ball 1.

Ball 1 completes traveling through sensor.

Ball 2 completes traveling through sensor.


How many balls were detected? (hint, it's less than 2)

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

Why are they using touch screens when you could assign a ref to watch a ball and give him a hand held trigger with a button for assists, truss/catch, high, and low goal. She would never have to take her eyes of the field.

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

refs would have to calculate assists in their head (more complex than recording zone/robot possession pairs, which would require 9 buttons)

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

1) It only knows how many if someone tells it for each match.
2) Optical sensing of goal-traversing balls has been tried before (2006). It wasn't reliable. Even detecting balls that were guaranteed to come through a sensor block one at a time was problematic (2010).

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

This year might be a lost cause - if FIRST cannot quickly design and deploy hardware/software fixes to the system that make it easier for humans to input scoring/foul information - fixes that minimize any one individual's distraction from on-field activities - then no number of additional volunteers is going to help. The bottleneck is at the human->FMS point of interaction. I WOULD CERTAINLY HOPE THEY ARE TRYING TO FIX IT, however. Alas, the community hasn't really been updated on whether or not that is actively being pursued. I'd consider this to be of a "DEFCON" level similar to or even greater than that of the 2012 Einstein fallout, since many, many, MANY more teams are actively being affected. We praised FIRST for their openness in that situation - we need it even more right now.

Regardless of continuing FMS concerns, my contention that many referee volunteers out there are either ill-prepared or ill-suited for the role remains, independent of FMS issues. I have seen more direct video evidence of referees staring at blatant infractions (i.e. not distracted by HMI data entry at the time) than I care to recount this year.

So how to fix both in future seasons? Seems Manchester can easily invest some resources to GREATLY address these problems, with the expenditure of a little more money and acquisition of more employee manpower.

Better referee training. Earlier referee training. Visual referee training. A focus, once and for all, in ensuring CONSISTENCY in application of the rules - which has been a long standing complaint of countless teams and mentors for as long as I've been involved in this program. FIRST can spend more money to hire quality control staff to develop better, more visual training materials - referee training and any other training of key volunteers - LRI's, etc.

FIRST can also, critically, spend more money to hire more field development staff to design and build and VET better field control systems. Many hands make light work, and many brains can help identify the human interaction bottlenecks experienced with this year's FMS and ensure that they are properly eliminated.

I have asked a veteran referee - a degreed engineer - his thoughts about the overall training process. He has been thoroughly underwhelmed by the available training materials and methods over the years. I encouraged him to email FIRST HQ and explain this in detail to them, for anyone who sits back and simply accepts things the way they are is not doing anything to affect necessary change. Here is a brief summary of his feedback shared with me:

• Text-based referee training materials are insufficient to properly prepare referees for their critical role. If veteran referees are not enthused/confused by the material, that does not bode well for referees who've never done this sort of thing before.
• Many questions on the referee qualification exam are nebulous and/or confusing and do not lend themselves to ensuring command of the rules and manual.
• The lack of any visual/video support materials highlighting examples of what is and what is not an infraction is a glaring omission. The development of such things would help eliminate individual interpretation and spread consistent interpretations throughout the entire referee community. In addition, such things could be published publicly TO SHOW TEAMS A BASELINE FOR WHAT IS AND IS NOT ACCEPTABLE GAMEPLAY BEHAVIOR in regards to rules that are most open for interpretation. Show teams what to expect, and they are more likely to CONFORM TO THAT EXPECTATION, minimizing the freaking wide gamut of CRAP GAMEPLAY referees have to sift through during matches. Note the capitalization and embellished emphasis was my own and not his. Go figure.
• Video can also help a referee better understand how to interact with and operate the field control HMI's. Perhaps much more quickly and effectively than a text/pictorial based manual.
• Interaction with head referees in any pre-event Q&A sessions is often limited and insufficient to truly prepare one for the role, especially if prior training has left one with a lot of doubt as to how they should be calling key infractions.
• Pre-event conference calls with head referees are not mandatory - they are at the discretion of the head ref.

So there you go. The upfront expense to add additional human resources toward improving referee preparation and optimizing the field system to minimize referee distraction from gameplay. Better communication to teams as to what is and what isn't an infraction using video-based examples BEFORE the competitions get under way. A top-down approach to improved communication to help once and for all generate some consistency in gameplay oversight and help cement FRC as the pinnacle of PROFESSIONAL robotics competitions.

Here would be one obvious example of what I am talking about. Recognizing the FRC game scales such that the rules/penalties/manual are more complex than this competition, that simply means FIRST needs to hire sufficient staff to produce similar content for a more complex game challenge. http://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=P...u-E8Bbcg8ifQpa

Re: FRC Blog - It Wasn’t Against the Rules
 

My understanding is that the prematch ref screens require the refs to indicate how many alliance BALLs are on the field.

To your second point and the other poster above?

I used to do volunteer work in racecar timing applications. We used a single photo beam and were able to detect 2 cars crossing the beam together, so long as they did not do so side by side by measuring the length of the occlusion. If it was longer than the longest car in the field, you knew it was 2 cars.

In the case of the 2014 FRC goals, the low are easy to deal with, as only one ball can cross the plane of the alliance wall at a time there. In the high goal, if you orient an array of sensors perpendicular to the floor, spaced across the width of the goal such that a ball will always break exactly two of the sensors, it becomes simple to distinguish multiple balls crossing the opening.

Just because we have been unsuccessful in FRC applications before does not mean it isn't possible to do.