Re: It could happen to you (but we hope not)
 

Snip snip!
I agree with a lot of what you say even though I was helping the team that got wrecked the wreck and now has half a bot. This was a very well written and thought out post and the only thing idiotic would be to not read it through. The only thing I disagree with what someone said above with the whole "If both sides didn't have a ball for an equal amount of time."

But I will be honest.

I am the person I am because I have come to accept the mistakes I have made not because I try to change them.

Shout out to members of 1339 for rollin' with the blows!

Re: It could happen to you (but we hope not)
 

What you wrote is exactly what refs have to go through. There is quite a bit of training that goes on for key volunteer positions. There is a test, training, and weekly calls that go on. I agree, Orlando had some tough calls, but remember they are only human and volunteers - they are not getting paid.

Re: It could happen to you (but we hope not)
 

Just a few comments. I have as well worn the stripes of a referee in other sports and know from first hand that the referees are not going to get every call right every time. And the expectation that the referees should know all the rules is preposterous. No matter how much training you get, no matter how many test you have to take your not going to remember all the rules. To 1410 I do believe you were on the other end of things in Colorado, during semi finals. Specifically refereeing to match SF 2-2. The foul that was called on the other alliance was possession of the other alliances ball, when 4153 accidentally lowered their collector the wrong direction into 2996's robot. Not only was this a questionable call, but the foul was assessed as a technical foul, when the rule was changed to a regular foul. Not to take away what you guys did at colorado, you guys performed well, just some thoughts.

Re: It could happen to you (but we hope not)
 

Not to say you're wrong on your assessment, but here is G12



G12
An ALLIANCE may not POSSESS their opponent’s BALLS. The following criteria define POSSESSION :

“carrying” (moving while supporting BALLS in or on the ROBOT or holding the BALL in or on the ROBOT),
“herding” (repeated pushing or bumping),
“launching” (impelling BALLS to a desired location or direction via a MECHANISM in motion relative to the ROBOT), or
“trapping” (overt isolation or holding one or more BALLS against a FIELD element or ROBOT in an attempt to shield them).


Violation: FOUL, if unintentional and inconsequential (i.e. does not significantly impact MATCH play). TECHNICAL FOUL per consequential instance. TECHNICAL FOUL per extended instance. If strategic, RED CARD for the ALLIANCE.

It appeared to be on purpose. They lowered their arm on us. It was not a flimsy arm either. So it had to be done by a driver. I was there watching behind the Plexiglas.

It is not our fault they "lowered their collector the wrong direction"

By the rule, it affected match play because it unseated the ball from our shooter, mind you that reaching in our robot is the only way to do that. That is mainly why it was called as a technical foul I would assume.

Re: It could happen to you (but we hope not)
 

To clarify lgphoneeric's post, here is the video a few seconds before the foul: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKetpYldI0Q#t=119

Whether or not it was intentional or consequential, this still would have lead to a tie because we were exactly 20pts behind before the foul.

Proof from the FMS Twitter: "TY E MC 16 RF 127 BF 157 RA 1987 1619 4153 BA 662 1410 2996 RFP 0 BFP 50 RHS 75 BHS 15 RTS 52 BTS 92"

If it was a tie, we would have won off the first tiebreaker. From the manual:
"In the case where the MATCH score of each ALLIANCE is equal, the tie is broken by awarding an extra point to the ALLIANCE with (in the following order):

1. highest number of FOUL points awarded (i.e. the ALLIANCE that played the cleaner MATCH)"

We were not on the other side of what happened in Utah. In Utah, the head ref gave a re-play based off a condition that would not have changed the outcome of the match because the condition was the same for both alliances.

Re: It could happen to you (but we hope not)
 

I can't tell if you're serious or not. Please tell me you're not.

Re: It could happen to you (but we hope not)
 

I think he is. It is ludicrous. Either know all the rules or don't ref. Drivers have to know them, the refs better too.

Re: It could happen to you (but we hope not)
 

I am so glad all the drive teams I encountered this season knew all the rules. Especially the HP's.

(Pardon me while I attempt to pry my tongue out of my cheek.)

Re: It could happen to you (but we hope not)
 

Fom what you have described, 4153 violated 2996's frame perimeter and somehow was deemed in possession of the opponent's ball.

Violating the frame perimeter is a G28 violation. G28 requires "deliberate or damaging" contact. It is also a technical foul.

I'm guessing that they decided to call a G12 technical instead of g28 because it would avoid the argument of whether the G28 violation was deliberate.

BTW: Assuming it was possession, and I am not sure it was (I would have called G28), I would have called it consequential because it was when the ball was in the process of being scored.

The Head Ref should know the major rules that affect game play, like the dead ball rule. When a ball is trapped in an opponents robot, it is a Head Ref call, and not for the alliance to use their one "dead ball" card. After the technical is called (for extended possession), the dead ball call should follow fairly quickly. No team is going to intentionally hold onto the opponents ball. If they don't clear it right away, then something is wrong with their clearing mechanism. The only exception might be if they are against a wall or another bot, and the wall/bot is blocking the clearing.

At one regional, after a deflated ball, the Head Ref realized he made a bad call (did a cycle restart rather than having field personnel give the team another ball) after the match. I believe the match was replayed because of the call.

Knowing the details of the dead ball rule is particularly important because of the variations of when a new cycle starts, and when a freed ball needs to be cleared from play. Drivers and Human Players should know this too. I have seen dead balls cleared from play, only for the human player to inbound the ball.

Re: It could happen to you (but we hope not)
 

I said they have to know them, knowing how to play by them is totally different.

Re: It could happen to you (but we hope not)
 

It is by no means "preposterous" to expect everyone on the field to know the rules of the game. That many people fail to meet expectations is unsurprising, but it should be called out as undesirable, not accepted as normal.

Re: It could happen to you (but we hope not)
 

If only there was a protocol for penalizing them when they violate the rules...

But really. Teams can be ignorant of the rules and it can cost their alliance matches. Referees can be ignorant of the rules without serious reprimand (as far as I know).

Re: It could happen to you (but we hope not)
 

I completely agree with you. Which is why all FIRST games should be designed to require as little ref decision making as possible. In most of the sports I've played, Ref's exist to ensure no one is breaking rules or playing unfairly. The ref's are not present in these games to determine every single point that is scored. The ref's should only be involved in scoring when there is something questionable on the table. Ref's are not intended to be score keepers.

This game completely defies this. Which (IMO) is the source of most "controversy" I've seen this year. All of this being said, the large majority of ref's are doing their absolute best and I thank them for doing so.

If you don't know the rules, save everyone the trouble and don't ref. While I do not expect you to be able to recite each rule word for word, you should know the rules better than I do as a student. I have read all of the rules regarding game play several times over, and I will be asking you, the ref, for clarification on particular rules from time to time to ensure that our team is interpreting them the same as the team of refs. If you don't know the rules there is a solid chance you will be creating some confusion and that confusion will spiral into bigger issues.

In a game where the ref's are also the score keepers, all of the rules must be known.

Re: It could happen to you (but we hope not)
 

First of all I still do not agree that there should have been a fouled called on the G12, the ball didn't meet any of the criterion of possession. They called it on the grounds that 4153 trapped the ball and thats what they counted as a possession; however, if you watch the video the only tapped the ball and then they immediately raised the collector. The ball was not overtly isolated, or held against a robot in an attempt to shield it so the G12 still does not apply. As for G28 maybe, but it didn't damage anything, so it would only have been a 20 point foul. With regards to the referees. The referees know the rules, but the opinion that the referees memorize the entire manual and that their interpretation of the rules matches yours is still crazy. It is easy to judge from the outside what goes in the middle of a match, but I bet there are very few if any people, who have memorized every single element of the manuel and can quote all the rules. The refs have the toughest jobs at the regional and have a lot of pressure to make the right calls to the best of their ability. No one is perfect in their rulings. I just think that the expectation that they know every single rule is not fair to the referees. The tie breaker is indeed the following:

1. highest number of FOUL points awarded (i.e. the ALLIANCE that played the cleaner MATCH)
2. if FOUL points are equal, highest number of ASSIST points
3. if ASSIST points are equal, highest number of AUTO points
4. if AUTO points are equal, highest sum of TRUSS and CATCH points

Re: It could happen to you (but we hope not)
 

I don't disagree with you about G12, but recall that the "in an attempt to shield" has been completely disregarded by the GDC in all of their Q&A answers to date. Me? I'm not bitter.

With regard to G28, it is not available as a 20 point foul. All G28s are mandatory technical fouls.