It could happen to you (but we hope not)
 

At the Utah Regional this past weekend Team 1410 was lucky enough to captain the 8th seed alliance with Teams 1339 and 3669. During the 1st quarter final we faced the 1st seed alliance. A number of very atypical events occurred, which were reviewed in depth by the local and national FRC staff that ultimately changed the outcome of the 1st quarter final. While our team is disappointed in the rulings made, we are posting our experience to inform other teams and prompt a healthy debate about the rules. We hope that there will be additional rules clarification and referee training provided. We are competing again in Colorado in week 6 and have faith that any issues will be worked out by then. The views contained here are only from Team 1410, but we want to hear from other teams at the Utah Regional, specifically about your experiences with the pedestal during matches.

1st Match

In the first match of the quarter final our alliance upset the 1st seed and won 76-57 thanks to great autonomous by 1339 and 3669. A ball actually hit our breaker and turned us off mid match. There were no penalties or issues. Thanks to our alliance for carrying us through that one (you guys rock!).

2nd Match

The second match was where all the fun began. Please watch it (http://youtu.be/AGyOVCPz7kA) so that the discussion below makes more sense. Our camera team was asked to follow our robot so we apologize that you can’t always see the whole field, but this is the only video we have.

In the match, the blue ball bounced onto and became trapped on a red robot at 1:40 until 2:23 in the video. At the end of the match the score 175 to 72 was displayed. A few minutes later the score was corrected to 125 to 72 and declared final over the PA. That is when things got interesting. Both alliances moved to the question box and a long discussion ensued.

These two rules are most applicable to the discussion:

After review, both alliances agreed that that correct score of the match was 125 to 72 (initially 3 technical fouls had been assigned to red, but 2 technical fouls is correct).

The red alliance said there was a time period after a ball was scored where the pedestal was not lit for 8 seconds. They claimed they could have made up the difference in the final score given those 8 seconds.

The blue alliance disagreed that enough points could have been made to affect the outcome of the match with 8 additional seconds. The blue alliance also pointed out that the cycle had not been correctly restarted when the ball was trapped on the red robot. The head referee incorrectly stated 3.1.2 and told the blue alliance that he was clearly looking for the dead ball card to be presented before starting a new cycle. Blue did not show the correct full text of 3.1.2 to the head referee until after the situation was resolved (our mistake for not having a printed rule book handy and, of course, the app was not working for whatever reason).

The head referee listened to both sides to see if either side would withdraw their objections. Blue wanted to leave the match as played, red wanted a replay. Ultimately, the head ref decided he was not comfortable making the decision and called FRC HQ. The decision was made to replay the match because of the eight-second delay in lighting the red pedestal.

Here are the reasons we feel the replay should not have happened:

1) For those who have not attended an event: It is not unusual for a pedestal to be unlit for 5 to 10 seconds in a match after a ball is scored. We talked to numerous other coaches and drive teams at Utah and they all experienced similar delays throughout qualification matches. While waiting in the question box later during eliminations we were directly behind a ref when we heard a team yelling to start a new cycle. We yelled too and saw the ref reach down and hit his panel and the pedestal re-lit. When this was presented to the field staff they said there would not be a replay for the delay we had just witnessed. It was frustrating to see that granting a replay for a short pedestal delay during eliminations was not being enforced consistently. It was also frustrating that small pedestal delays occurred during the entire event and there were not replays for all of the pedestal errors.

2) It was extremely disappointing to see that the head ref did not know all the rules, specifically the portion of 3.1.2 for when a ball is stuck on an opposing alliance. As is mentioned above, he said that he was specifically looking for a dead ball card to be presented by the blue alliance to restart the cycle. The blue ball was possessed by 2594 from 1:40 – 2:23. At 1:44 when 2594 slammed into the wall to try to dislodge the ball it was clearly stuck and not coming out. This means a new cycle should have started for blue around that time. At least 30 seconds of a cycle were lost for blue and if the argument could be made (and was later accepted) that 60 points can be scored in 8 additional seconds – how many points can be scored in 30 additional seconds? Later in the day one of the refs said to us, “How were we supposed to know it was stuck?” From 1:44 to 1:59 the ball is very clearly stuck. We don’t know how it could have been more clear. It was very hard to hear that it was even a question that the ball was stuck from a referee.

If blue lost 30+ seconds and red lost 8 seconds we believe blue still had the disadvantage and the replay should not have even been considered. We made the argument that the cycle should have been restarted for blue earlier and that blue had lost more time than red, but since the head ref did not know the rules correctly it was ignored.

3) It was particularly frustrating to listen to mentors (not students, mentors) in the question area claim that they could have made a 60-point cycle with 8 additional seconds because:

a. A 60-point cycle would require a catch. The only video we have is of our elimination matches, but one thing you will notice is there is never an attempt to do a catch at all and no indication it could have been done. We only heard of one catch during the entire Utah Regional, though there may have been a few.

• Match 1 http://youtu.be/yqaoIqZxU-0
• Match 2 http://youtu.be/AGyOVCPz7kA
• Match 2 Replay http://youtu.be/2pkzQOQSwFU
• Match 3 http://youtu.be/OyZ-i7OYDZA

b. Team 2594 did not have a mechanism on their robot during the match. They removed their shooter for whatever reason (which is why the ball got stuck). We do not believe that they could have ever made the assist required for a 60-point cycle. Note that referees were not calling two bumps of the ball as a possession throughout the regional. In the match, 2594 did not ever make an attempt to assist because they were playing defense the whole time.

c. At the end of the match the only possessions of the red the ball was 1619 in all three zones. Based on all the matches we have seen from weeks 1 through 3, the additional steps to get a 60-point cycle (two additional possessions in unique zones, a truss shot, catch and 10 point goal) cannot happen in 8 additional seconds.

If a 60-point cycle could not have been made, and we believe we have demonstrated it was not possible, then per T21 the replay should not have happened because the additional score would not have affected the outcome.

4) It was more frustrating to see the head ref and FTA agree that a 60-point cycle could have been finished with 8 additional seconds after watching well over 100 matches. It clearly takes longer than 8 seconds. They knew better.

5) It was most frustrating to hear that when FRC HQ was called that they believed a 60-point cycle could have been made and therefore a replay would be granted. Note that we have no idea what was said on the phone and it is quite likely that the folks on the phone had incomplete information. Since the head ref did not know 3.1.2 correctly we are sure that the 30+ seconds of delay restarting the blue cycle after the blue ball was stuck was not communicated to FRC HQ. Per 5.5.3 the head ref should have made the ultimate call but we were told that it was made by FRC HQ.

After the 2nd Match

The fun continued. The discussion after the second match took a long time and students from all six teams were there with mentors to support and guide them. The students were very excited and emotions were high so we really appreciated the staff allowing mentors to assist in keeping the situation calm. When the final ruling was communicated to the teams we were also told that since it was an elimination match that a back-to-back match was required by the head ref and FTA. We believe this requirement was derived from 5.4.3, which dictates a strict play order. A match that was sitting on the field ready to play was removed and we were told to get back out on the field immediately. There is no discussion of replays in 5.4.3, but we think the head ref and FTA could have used better judgment and shifted the replay of QF1-2 to the spot usually occupied by QF1-3 and used the section allowed for ties for the eventual 4th match.

Per 5.5.6 a field timeout should have been called because there were back to back matches. We are not sure if a field timeout was called, but we do not believe there was one called.

More bad luck struck alliance 8 – 1339 turned on their robot to head back out to the field and discovered a dead Talon. A spare was quickly found and the replacement process started. The alliance captain was sent to call a timeout if needed. We have no idea how much time had transpired since the official replay was announced. The FTA came back a few minutes later and refused to allow us to take a timeout. He did not reference a rule and we believe we were within the T17 requirement to submit a timeout.

The logic for refusing the timeout was that the alliance had already had plenty of time to do repairs during the debate over the previous match and that the competition was running way behind on the schedule. No rule was ever referenced by the FTA regarding a rejection of our timeout request. It was clear that his intention was to keep match play moving along. We are still baffled why the match that was already setup did not continue.

The FTA did keep our timeout coupon (this will come up later). Luckily 1339 was ready and we headed back on the field.

2nd Match Replay

Finally match 2 was replayed. During the match, 1339’s frame was grappled and destroyed in at least two spots. We are trying to get a photo from them, but there was a significant amount of metal bent and broken off in the very center of their frame. The only way to reach the damaged portions of the robot was to reach inside of 1339’s frame perimeter. G28 is clear about this type of damage.

The video is too grainy to see, but we cannot imagine the defense 1339 played was the “catalyst for the damage.” http://youtu.be/2pkzQOQSwFU

When the refs were presented with the damage they said they did not see it and therefore could not call a foul. They acknowledged the damage occurred, but would not call a penalty. The match final score was 123 to 76. Had the technical foul been called it would have changed the result of the match.

1339 was left inoperable and we used our substitution to call in 2484.

Before 3rd Match

Even more bad luck for alliance 8. 1410 had lost communications multiple times during the match 2 replay. We could not get our cRio to connect to the field at the start of match 3. Since our timeout had not been accepted earlier we wanted to use it to try to get connected. The FTA still had our coupon and refused to return it saying that we had already received the benefit of the timeout due to the delays resulting from the long discussions over the previous matches. Only after we repeatedly demanded they call FRC HQ back again and FRC HQ corrected the FTA was our timeout returned and used. The FTA did apologize after returning the timeout, but it was clear throughout the day that his primary goal was to keep the matches on time rather than delay and get everything right. This was very frustrating.

Also, we asked the opposing alliance if they would call a timeout while we were trying to get ours back and the FTA said that was not allowed. Frank made it clear in his blog post that is it totally legal. See more here: http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...inst-the-Rules . After pointing this out explicitly, it was acknowledged that this would be allowed. In the meantime, our timeout coupon was returned so this option was not utilized. We used our timeout but were unable to connect to the field so the 1410 robot was removed from the field and the match was played with one of the original alliance members and the substitute team.

Final Thoughts

Ultimately the 1410 mentors are very proud of our students for handling a difficult situation without losing their heads. Our alliance was very helpful and supportive – thank you all so much. We are happy to say that all parties involved shook hands at the end of the day.

It was a good “teaching moment” for the students – sometimes life isn’t fair. It was disappointing to have to tell the team that in the end we argued the best we could and had to accept the outcome. We believe there were multiple times where the outcome of Quarter Final 1 was decided by the referees, in some cases incorrectly, because they did not know the rules. We hope that some lessons learned can be gleaned from this very unusual situation.

Thanks for reading!

FRC 1410

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

Thanks for writing.

This is tough for me to digest. This game needs some fixing. I don't know if it will happen, so I think we should all soldier on remember that it is not about the Robot, but it is such a buzzkill to have a situation like this occurring in eliminations.

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

There are way too many variables for this game. This makes it difficult for everybody involved in the running of events as well as the participants. Even if it is too late to make changes this year, FIRST needs to make sure that this never happens again. That being said, I am sorry for what your team had to go through. It sounds like you guys did everything right but weren't helped by those who are supposed to help you.

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

Having watched the match in question and inquiring about the reasoning behind the replay, I respect you and your alliance for staying gracious and professional despite the obvious frustration you have endured because of this. While I 100% agree with you that the replay was undeserved, sometimes life just isn't fair.

Good luck to you and Angelbotics at Denver. If your performance at Utah was anything to show by, you should do fantastic when we see you there in a few weeks.

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

This was the state of our Robot after the replayed match.

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

Sounds like a real hectic event. Looks like you did manage to get some of the issues resolved with the timeout at least. Not without a ton of work though.

From what I can see of the video you posted of 1339... I believe that they were also in violation of the Perimeter Rule multiple times.. In fact becoming entangled numerous times with robots that they initiated contact with.

It was stated in an update that damaged caused to your robot while you or an opposing robot have an extrusion outside your perimeter, if contact is initiated by the damaged robot, will not be called for a violation.

-------------
High speed accidental collisions may occur during the MATCH and are expected. ROBOTS extend elements outside of the FRAME PERIMETER at their own risk; no penalties will be assigned for contact between two such extended elements.

G28

Initiating deliberate or damaging contact with an opponent ROBOT on or inside the vertical extension of its FRAME PERIMETER is not allowed.

Violation: TECHNICAL FOUL

A ROBOT with an element outside its FRAME PERIMETER may be penalized under this rule if it appears they are using that element to purposefully contact another ROBOT inside its FRAME PERIMETER. Regardless of intent, a ROBOT with an element outside its FRAME PERIMETER that causes damage to another ROBOT inside of its FRAME PERIMETER will be penalized, unless the actions of the damaged ROBOT are the catalyst for the damage.
------------
Bold emphasis - mine

I did not see any intentional intent to damage the robot. Though 1339 sure looked like they wanted to put on some hard hits and did many during that match.. was a site to see them bashing full speed into their opponents.

This is an extremely defensive game and was mentioned several times to build your robots robustly. We were so concerned about this that the entire robot is incased in 1/8" or greater Lexan. Even our catapult is partial Lexan, the only thing sticking out of our Lexan shell is our intake.

I feel for your frustration. There are many issues with the running of this years game.

Luckily you do have an additional event to go to. Time to gear up for that and to continue to show how your team is working hard to be truly gracious professionals.

Good luck with the rest of your season, from the looks of it you should do well. I will keep a watch on your next event. Keep it up!

Aloha

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

I think it is safe to say that this year's game is a lot crazier than in the past. I honestly wish that, FIRST would have head refs that knew the rules inside out. Like have a training for a month before they are allowed to become one. I don't know all that is required to become head ref, but we had some really really tough calls at Orlando regional.

I also believe that they should have to take a test AND pass, to be a head ref. While FIRST is all about GP, we want everyone to have a fair game. Somethings are out of our (mentors and students) hands, but should there be error on the human, there should be some sort of replay (not everything, but the major ones).

(this is my opinion only)

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

This years game is extremely rough, and back to back replays, especially in elimination rounds, can really hurt robots. Teams are willing to take more risks in eliminations because they know that if they loose, they are out, and drivers would rather have a damaged robot than an eliminated one.

My opinion is that the match should be stopped when something (like a pedestal issue) happens, so that this sort of debate about what could have happened never has to happen. It's impossible to know exactly what would happen, and it hurts both alliances to have to replay full matches over and over again.

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

I suggest that you do some research before saying that the head refs "should" have to take a test and pass.

As I understand it, Head Refs have to get training from HQ (not quite sure if that's in NH or not, but I think it is), and they definitely have to take a test and pass it. Us normal zebra-type refs have to take a similar test and pass it, after doing some online training. There are also conference calls on a regular basis among the various head refs to keep everybody apprised of what's going on. That's the stuff I know about; I'm sure some of the head refs could confirm that if they wanted to.


To the OP: I'm very impressed by the spirit you've showed in that post. Good luck at Colorado, and may skill drive that luck!

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

The disturbing part about all this was the lack of fouls called on the replay match.

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

Hello Again,

After watching the video, way too many times, I believe the damage occurred at the 2:30 mark in the video. Team 1339 was defending the robot that was about to receive the inbound of the ball. Their pickup was all the way over on the opposite side of where they were pushing. Another red alliance robot came up and delivered a hit, probably trying to run counter defense. You can see 1339 arm was fine prior as they used it to score the one point goal a few moments prior. Then after the hit, which lifted part of the robot off the ground, you can see the arm drooping.
The robot that did hit 1339 was not extending anything at the time, but did hit their pickup arm, inside THEIR own perimeter, which you can see afterwards 1339 arm is hanging crooked. The damage might be inside the frame but was caused by too much stress on the pickup that was outside the frame perimeter breaking a weaker junction inside the robot.

Sad to see this, but at least you can see that it wasn't intentional nor were the opposing team inside team 1339 frame...

Lesson learned.. DO NOT LEAVE ANYTHING OUTSIDE YOUR PERIMETER! Especially if you are running defense.. Very tempting to make a new Lexan pickup for this very reason...

Good luck!

Aloha

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

In an attempt to keep the arm from ramming into the robot in front of them someone came up the backside and smashed into it. Looks like our brogrammers need to get a button that centers the arm in a vertical position.

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

I can see why you would think that. However, the hit that you are referring to only exacerbated the damage that had already been done, at almost exactly the 1:38 mark in the video. 399's intake slams down on our tower, when our arm is on the opposite side of the robot, as they prepare for a truss shoot.

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

Why would you ram an opposing robot into your team mate as a defensive action?

P.S
I heard there was HD video of this match floating around that ought to be a nice substitute to netflix for once...

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

The issue that we have with this situation is not with the damage to our robot, or the other teams on our alliance or the opposing alliance. We knew the risks that we were taking when we designed it the way that we did, and we even, stupidly, Used the .04 in thick 1x1 versaframe as the main structure for the arm. Our issue was with the reffing and foul calls throughout the event. There were more times than I could count that no fouls were called for direct inner frame contact between robots. All teams involved were very helpful, and it was a pleasure to drive with and against all teams involved. Even in the pits, trying to get the bot back together, I looked up from pulling the structure apart to see one of 399's team members with his arms elbow deep in the robot, helping. 1619 lent us drill bits, boxes and manpower. Our Alliance partners helped, and so did teams that had nothing to do with it, Like 2996, The Cougars Gone Wired. I came out of it incredibly impressed with the teams and students involved in first, and the incredible gracious professionalism that everyone involved displayed. My apologies if I came across the wrong way.

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

As the head coach of 1339, I'd like to clarify my take on the damage. I posted on one of the Utah threads what I will essentially repeat here: the damage happened not as a deliberate effort by any team or driver, and that it is questionable to ME that it was due to perimeter incursion. Rather, the rough nature of the game with the open field, combined with overwhelmed refs who either call too many or too few fouls (depending on who is asked), and a weak spot in our frame design, all led to the end of our run in eliminations. I think that a careful look at the photos of the damage should satisfy people (including my students) that something like this might have occurred at some point in the season anyway. No matter. We'll rebuild the frame stronger before the colorado regional and be a better team for it.

Aside from this issue, I am in complete agreement with the OP. The replay match should never have happened, and a series of errors and poor decisions led to this unfortunate breakdown. It can't be undone, but I hope this thread opens up the possibility that nothing like it will happen again. For my part, I would argue for there being THREE more refs on the field to prevent more unseen fouls and faults, as well as intensive training for all refs on the rules and field protocol. The thing I am most astonished at remains the fact that at no point was I or any of the other mentors told that we should never have been able to intervene as we did. I joined in late and was flummoxed to see mentors talking to the head ref at all.

I have the utmost respect for the drive teams of 399 and 1619. The battle between the drive bases of 1339, 399 and 1619 was amazing to watch, and I know you played your hearts out. My team drivers know how deeply I respect them too. But we have been reached out to by the fine students of our on-field opponents and they have been really kind and supportive. That makes this, in my mind, an event that forged fine young men and women of character, and not just a comedy of errors.

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

Research required: be a part of a team that attends a regional.

Sorry to say this but refs are people who get to decide the outcome of matches. They have a VERY high stakes job to do and failure is simply unacceptable. The job of a head ref is to clarify rules and issue replays if mistakes are made or a field bug occurs.

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

My point was actually that the head ref DOES have to take a test. Not "should have to". Implying that the head ref does not have to take a test--without knowing for sure--can be very damaging. (I think I remember that back in the day, the test wasn't required. Back in the day being a good two FIRST generations* ago, about 8 years. Memory is a bit fuzzy, though.)

If you read the rest of my post, I went into what detail I know about the testing/training requirements, not only for the head ref, but also for the non-hear refs. This is stuff that your average person at an event, team member or not, probably is not aware of, and may easily assume does not exist.


*FIRST generation: the 4 years it takes for a complete team turnover in most cases.

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

First things first - Hats off to the officials that regulate the matches. You do a thankless job. So thank you.

I have been a coach for many sports for quite a few years. I have also worn the zebra-stripes. I will state this - officiating/reffing is much more involved than is the role of the coach or the players.

There are always calls that I disagree with during a 80 minute soccer match. Always. But I always remind myself, and my players that the officials are part of the game, like it or not. We have won many games, and we have lost many games. What I tell my players is 'if you feel that the official decided the game, then we weren't playing the game to our strengths'.

A much better example is when I coach wrestling - each match is 6 minutes, and there are 14 matches in a dual (Much more like at a FRC regional). Each match has a bearing on how the dual ends. In a 6 minute match, the official has much more influence on how the match is decided. However, I still put out the same mantra - 'do not allow the officials to be in a position to decide the outcome. Wrestle your match whistle to whistle - no matter the outcome'.

Now, I am not discounting what has occurred during the course of 3 weeks of FRC 2014 - but instead I want to outline that even though we see things through the eyes of our own teams' result - the officials are trying to determine the best call - each match. I am relatively new to FRC, but what I have seen is that these officials are much better than what you may find at a local HS basketball game, wrestling match, football game, baseball game, etc.

FRC does a great job of creating and designing these games. And they have to reinvent the game year after year. This year seems to be a little more trying for the officials - that is understood.

What I do not want to see is an exodus of officials (like I have see in the ranks of wrestling, baseball, soccer, football, etc) in recent years because of an overabundance of complaining.

My whole point in this is just this: I have been an athlete, a coach, and a referee. The stress and strain on a person follows this in the same order - it is hard to be an athlete, much more difficult to be a coach, and extremely stressful to be the judging eyes and ears as an official.

Your points are valid - everyone's points are valid. However, an official can call what they see - and cannot call what they don't see. When there is a question, the officials must regroup and make the best call that they can at that time in a small amount of time.

Good Luck all!

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

I am the team captain of 2594 and I was also the drive coach. All of these views are completely my teams and don't necessarily reflect the views of our alliance partners.

I first want to say that I understand how frustrating this all is for everyone involved. But I don't feel like I have the right to discuss the replay because I was not there when the decision was made, I was in the pit doing an emergency repair on our robot. Everything that I heard is second hand, and as a result has some sort of bias. I don't want to spread any information I personally didn't hear, so I won't respond to any of those points.

I will however clarify a little on your point b. I know that you had no way of knowing what was going on with our bot, so I can understand why you thought this.

Yes we did disable our shooter. We removed our surgical tubing and zip-tied it down because it wasn't working reliably and it was making our life a bit of a pain. However, our intake was still working perfectly fine at the beginning of eliminations and could pick up the ball and knock it back out. That was why most of the matches we inbounded then spit the ball back out.

Sometime in the beginning of the match however, our arm motor burned up. If you remember the horrible smell that was our intake motor. We had no way of controlling our arm, so we had to play defense. Normally if a ball ever got stuck in our robot all we had to do was spin our intake arm to kick it out, but because it wasn't working we had to jerk the drive to knock it back out. Once the ball was stuck in our bot we had no room to do so for almost 30 seconds, but once we were free we were able to knock it out. Now I'm not saying that it is your alliances fault that we weren't able to get it out quickly enough, that was still completely on us. There was no way for you to know that we needed room to get it out.

I hope that your team has no hard feelings against me or my team. We were out there just trying to play our best. If you have any more concerns feel free to PM me and we can discuss it in more detail. I respect your team and I wish you guys the best of luck at your next regional. I will definitely be rooting for you guys. :)

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

Well, that explains quite a bit. I was watching the stream and became quite confused over this situation. For the record, I think that you are correct: There were some gaffes on the part of the refs, and time constraints pushed the decisions toward the quickest form of resolution, rather than the best one, at the end of this series of unfortunate events. Of course I am a biased and relatively uninformed observer, so my opinion in this matter should be taken with a grain of salt. ;)

In terms of robot ruggedness, I really feel for those who have received the short end of the stick and experienced damage on the field. Our 2013 Bot was forced to drop out of the national competition last year due to such circumstances.

I can't wait to meet up with 1410 and all the northern CO teams again in Denver. Hang tight and stay focused, there are some great bots this year that have a real shot at nationals!

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

It's nice to hear a firsthand account of what happened - we were in the queuing lines when most of this was happening and so I had only heard snippets of what was going on. I know this was a tough situation for both teams, so kudos on handling it graciously.

This is perhaps the most extreme example of inconsistent refereeing that plagued Utah throughout the weekend. Refs have a lot to keep track of in this game, and it's hard to get the rulings consistent every time. Nonetheless, this was a situation where foul mix-ups had a huge affect on the course of eliminations, and we should work to reduce that as much as possible.

We look forward to competing with you, Angelbotics, and many more great teams again at the Colorado regional, and sincerely hope Angelbotics will be up and running at 100% after taking some seriously massive damage.

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

Everyone seems to be ignoring the elephant in the room by being polite, so I'll point to it. There might be something I'm missing, but based on what I have read here so far... it seems pretty disturbing.

Can anyone from the Red Alliance not own up to their action of saying they can complete a 60 point cycle in 8 seconds??

I'm sure everyone who has watched the game so far is aware that is not a possible feat, let alone with defense being played on you... I don't know, but in my opinion even saying that is just ungracious at accepting the fact that you were beat by a better alliance.

What I find strange, is that the OP (I think) says the opposite alliance was very gracious and helped out with the fixes. So mabye this is more of a mentor issue (since the OP says THEY were the ones in the conversation)? I don't know ... something smells bad to me.

Perhaps I'm being overly pessemistic, and perhaps I'm only hearing one side of the story, but from the way it looks... well. I know if I were the Blue Alliance I would be just as frustrated to go out on a claim like that, regardless of the ref's decisions.

EDIT: Of course, and just to be clear, I'm waiting on a reply from the Red Alliance before I, personally, make up my mind.

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

One very big reason why you haven't seen the interested parties (me being one of them) say accusatory things about the Red Alliance teams is that we know and value the people who run those teams, as well as the students on them. It was a very difficult situation that occurred at a rapid pace under very extraordinary circumstances. Notice that when I pointed out how bizarre it was to have mentors talking to the head ref, I didn't indignantly refuse to join them; I was right there with them! And the only request we ever got to do anything different was from the head safety advisor, who set up cones for us to stand behind just to keep us out of traffic. I cannot get inside the heads of our opponents but I do know that on the field we played just as hard as they did, and off the field they have been compassionate and helpful. The ones among the mentors I have gotten to know over the years are my friends and I value that enough that I won't throw this in their faces. And I'm not small enough to be bitter about this anyway; what would that accomplish, other than ulcers for me, broken relationships, and students who learn to hold grudges? I see this as a problem in the game logistics, and I want everyone to know about it so that we can fix the problem in the future, for other teams. That's all.

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

Thanks for writing a very thorough post that (seems) to do a good job of trying to relate the whole debacle from a neutral standpoint. Issues like this have turned into flame-fests before... so far this thread has done well to remain a tempered discussion, focused more on "wow, that situation is overwhelmingly unfortunate - no one involved had an easy time!"

It seems like while the refing at Utah wasn't perfect (just as it never is), the only really big blunder was the decision to replay match 2 over 8 seconds lost at the pedestal.

The not-calling-a-dead-ball-when-a-blue-ball-fell-into-a-red-robot? Well, if they had called it after 2-5 seconds, and the ball had immediately freed, the blue alliance could fairly feel frustrated that they now had to remove that dead ball and regain their assists on the new ball. Dead ball's aren't actually "Get out of Jail Free" cards... they come at a cost.

The decision to re-play QF1-2 immediately rather than waiting for the originally intended QF1-3 slot? An unfortunate decision, but one that if you're simply following the letter of the rules sounds like the right decision. I believe every replay I've seen has been played in a subsequent slot. The timeout shouldn't have been allowed (but they should've given you the timeout coupon back) because it needs to be called within 2 minutes of when the green lights go up on the goals after the prior match. It sounds like this discussion carried on for 5-20 minutes, not 2.

The decision to call no tech foul for inside-the-perimter-zone damage? Very reasonable, given that a ref didn't see a case where the red alliance instigated the damaging contact. Perhaps the refs should've watched more closely, but it sounds like the damage may not have been red-alliance-initiated.

Really though, that a match was replayed over 8 seconds lost at the pedestal is a very significant thing. We can all agree here that 8 seconds are often lost at the pedestal... it could happen for a host of reasons and I'm guessing most matches unfortunately have at least one instance of an 8-second pedestal-delay. Even more baffling is the concept that a 60-point cycle was missed in those 8 seconds. There's a thread on CD about the perfect cycle. If one had been accomplished by any alliance in only 8 seconds (including inbound time), then we'd all be sitting here congratulating the successful alliance.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying a 60-point cycle in 8 seconds is impossible... I'm sure if you got the right three robots together and they practiced it a dozen times, you could get a couple times from pedestal-to-goal of 8 seconds. This would probably involve an inbounding bot that could truss from where they inbound, a catcher that could spit the ball out towards the goals, and a scorer that needed only to suck the ball in and shoot (no adjusting involved).

Thanks for "keeping it GP" - I wish you the best of luck in your upcoming events! Glad to see you all get another shot!

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

Well, I find it funny/strange/not very polite when people here are complaining about the ref's (not you, neccesarily), when this would not have happened in the first place had the Red Alliance not claimed they can do a 60-point cycle in 8 seconds.

They may be great people (in fact, I beleive that they are), and great friends. Just saying that they should own up to, at least in my opinion, their mistake - which hurt (at the end of the day) your students.

The fact that you should teach your students all you said (and I agree), does not take anything away from what I wrote above (again, in my opinon).

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

This is false.* A ball stuck in an opposing robot is supposed to be declared dead by the head ref, and if/when freed, becomes field debris. The alliance that owned the ball is under no obligation to free it. It is, in fact, a get out of jail card, which is makes sense, as it's not the owning alliance's fault.

If an ALLIANCE’S BALL becomes stuck in an opposing ALLIANCE’S ROBOT, the Head Referee will signal an extended infraction of G12 (the assumption is that the ALLIANCE has already been penalized for the initial G12 infraction). At this point, the Head Referee will suspend the current CYCLE and re-illuminate the PEDESTAL, beginning another CYCLE for that ALLIANCE. If the stuck BALL is freed, that ball will be considered FIELD debris. [emphasis mine]


This is really what gets me. HQ thought that that was a good idea? Seriously?

*EDIT: Sorry, this sounds harsher than I intended.

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

Thanks for correcting me here... I forgot dead balls stuck in an opponent's robot are handled differently. :-)

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

I'm glad to see so many people stepping up to help pay these volunteer refs for the month off from work they'll be taking to attend training, and ensuring that we have a mimimum of 9 refs at each and every event. It's great to see a community put their money where their mouth is this way! :rolleyes:

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

Just to recap what I said earlier - that the Red Alliance should own up to their claim that they could achieve a 60-point cycle in 8 seconds, since that is, to me - un-GP, in the sense that it is unrealistic and eventually led to the Blue Alliance losing instead of winning.

I also said I was waiting to hear from someone on the Red Alliance to make up my mind. Thankfully, a member of one of the Red Alliance teams (who chooses to remain annonymous at this time) did PM me with their view/explanation of the situation.

To quote the OP:
According to this team member, who says he/she was directly involved with the ruling, the Red Alliance was contesting the above claim, and saying that the delay was NOT 8 seconds, but around 25-30 seconds (I'm assuming, though I should ask to verify - that what happened if so, was that the Red Alliance claimed there was a delay, and the ref's said it was an 8 second delay... which gets us to Blue's POV (who assumed the 8 seconds claim came from Red. Add the havoc that was probably there.. and, well. You get it)).

It is further explained to me that the Red Alliance believed they could score 60 points in that time frame (full cycle/catchless cycle and additional truss shot/ ect.) of 25-30 seconds, which is actually something that makes much more sense to me.

It is ALSO said, and again - this is from this team member - that the ref's initally were AGAINST a rematch, based on the 8 second delay. Once the Red Alliance claimed that they have video evidence of the delay being 25-30 seconds, the ref's decided to involve FIRST HQ (DISCLAIMER: The video exists, it seems - they were not just claiming for fun. Also, it is also claimed that the video was never shown, only stated to exist).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I now have both POVs, and honestly ... it's REALLY confusing.

What is obvious - is that this game continues to be a big problem rules-wise, which is a true shame, since at the high levels of the game - it has a lot of potential, as we have seen in various regionals/districts.

Lastly, if indeed the above is how things transpired: It's not like I accused them outright (I was waiting for a reply from them), but just to clear the air, I'd like to apologize to the students and mentors of the Red Alliance.

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

There is excellent video from this match found here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dfjmny25g...ll-final-2.mp4

The ball enters the red goal at 3:32 and you don't see a human player with a red ball until 3:59--27 seconds later. The referees were probably open to the possibility of a full cycle with a catch because a catch had happened twice at the event (and I believe the alliance robots that did an earlier truss and the catch were actually on this red alliance).

Cycles can be extremely fast too--20-30 seconds is reasonable for a perfect cycle. Unfortunately, there is also the issue that a dead ball was not called immediately on the blue stuck ball, which is probably also contributed to the need for a replay.

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

The red alliance has no burden on them to explain anything. It's completely ridiculous for you to call them out under the guise of being anti-GP.

399 won the Chairman's award two weeks ago, and I'd wager they probably did it based on merit.

They also hit two 60 point cycles WITH NO PRACTICE super quick at their last regional.

Think what you want, but they don't owe an explanation to anybody.

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

Thanks for the clarification. All we had was the scouting photo of your bot from Thursday and it looked a lot different in the match.

We don't have any hard feelings - it was very obvious that it was a weird bounce that caused the ball to get lodged into your bot. I have seen a few other posts on various threads where it has happened to others as well. It was an unusual situation and the intent of the original post was to inform and discuss.

-matto-

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

One thing that was brought up to me when I showed a friend the pictures is that the amount of damage sustained on the robot was incredible. The fact that we were safely able to remove it from the field in one piece was fantastic. Our shooter design is simple and most of the moving parts I would call "dangerous" are very well contained. Compressed air is kept underneath lexan shielding, high speed belts kept inside the arms frame. I heard and saw a lot of robots with mechanisms that looked like they were ready to explode and I would ask all teams make sure that even in a state of catastrophic failure your robot does not put anyone at risk. Regardless of how we view the staff, volunteers, and even other teams at FIRST nobody should ever get hurt.

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

[quote=AdamHeard;1360906]I think it is absolutely antiGP if that was the case. Sugarcoat all you want - for an alliance to do that is purely antiGP. Even if it was an alliance consisting of 3 CMP Chairman's winners.

HOWEVER, I went ahead and said, quite clearly by the way, that I am in fact NOT calling it out as such, and waiting for their own response.

I did also say, that by the version of events, as stated at the time of my post, the issue of going out and saying how the refs/FIRST HQ are to blame, while ignoring the other issue, is purely wrong - and the elephant, as unpleasant and unprobable as it is (also written), needs to be addressed.

I think I also don't owe anybody an explanation, you included. My post was NOT calling anyone out, but rather stating an obvious fact (at the time) that everyone perferred to ignore.

Now, however, that the Red Alliance have spoken (or at least a member of, in PM, to me - and not accusing at all (since I assume they saw my post just as they SHOULD have)), I placed another post with how they saw the events and my apologies if they interperted my earlier post as a bash against them.

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

This thread has put a huge emphasis on the 8 second/24 second pedestal delay, but this isn't at the heart of the problem.

First, 2594 did not have any functional mechanisms during this match as discussed earlier in this thread (again, no hard feelings with them). Refs at Utah were not consistent with counting any sort of possession that did not involve a robot mechanism (such as pushing the ball), so chances are that the alliance could not get the third assist in their cycles that match.

More importantly, we were not given a ball while our ball was stuck in 2594. They held our ball for 43 seconds, during which we were never given another ball.

If an ALLIANCE’S BALL becomes stuck in an opposing ALLIANCE’S ROBOT, the Head Referee will signal an extended infraction of G12 (the assumption is that the ALLIANCE has already been penalized for the initial G12 infraction). At this point, the Head Referee will suspend the current CYCLE and re-illuminate the PEDESTAL, beginning another CYCLE for that ALLIANCE. If the stuck BALL is freed, that ball will be considered FIELD debris. [bold emphasis mine]

Looking at the video weatherdt posted, there were at least 30 seconds where the ball was clearly stuck in 2594 and we were not given another ball.

I don't think that the red alliance was wrong in asking for a re-play from their point of view, but I also don't think that there was enough reason for there to be a replay from the refs point of view.

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

Was able to grab some high def videos from the dropbox folder listed above.

These show the matches in much better resolution and from a fixed perspective.

QF 1-1 in HD: http://youtu.be/6D3iGm1dPTw

QF 1-2 in HD: http://youtu.be/6hWwZg8LzV4

QF 1-2 Replay in HD: http://youtu.be/IYPGWnC39vg

QF 1-3 in HD: http://youtu.be/Aw_EQ48RRSo

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

By this logic, they should not have been able to get possession of your ball, either. Whether or not the opposing alliance feels they could get possession is irrelevant to if a match should be replayed due to a field fault.

If anything, that increases the need for a replay of the match.

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

As an observer?

I'd bet big money the red pedestal took so long to light up after that goal, as the refs were focussed on the blue BALL stuck in 2594 to see what to do about it.

I would argue that the delay in lighting the pedestal for red, and the quantity of time 2594 held the blue ball (when the ref's ought to have declared it dead) were roughly equal, and so neither alliance had an advantage as a result.

However, both probably constitute a FIELD FAULT and thus the match ought to have been replayed.

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

I would just like to say that the gracious proffessionalism by EVERYONE in this thread has impressed me. FIRST has seriously done something amazing with this organization.

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

I'm not debating (nor advocating) your stance on the situation. The red alliance's 50+10 in 30 seconds is reasonable; the blue alliance's expectation that the cycle would correctly restart is also reasonable. But recall that field fault doesn't automatically mean the match needs to be replayed. T16 reads:

If, in the judgment of the Head Referee, an “ARENA fault” occurs that affects the outcome of the MATCH, the MATCH will be replayed. (emphasis mine)

If the non-ball times were roughly equal and neither alliance had an advantage, the outcome of the match was unaffected. If the head ref agreed with this stance, a replay should not have occurred.

Thus, I see the core issue here being that the ref crew did not know 3.1.2. Since they faulted Blue for not declaring a dead ball (when it was actually the head ref's responsibility), they saw Red at a disadvantage. Since Red lost, T16 applies and the replay makes sense in context--but it's the context that's wrong.

I'm the alliance captain of #4 (3334-3374-3241), and I can report that we did call a timeout after QF1-2 because our cRIO died and we believed we needed to replace it.

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

As a senior from team 3669 (on the same alliance as 1410 and 1339), I feel it is important to point out that following the debated elimination round, the Regional Director (if I recall correctly) came to our pits and offered an apology for the mistakes that were being made during the course of the weekend (not specifically the elimination round, but the generally overloading of the judges.) If I recall correctly (this was fresh after our loss so I apologize that my memory is a bit blurred), he said that the head ref that was originally lined up for the regional couldn't come and they had to come up with a substitute rather quickly. This was after I had a long discussion with the head ref about the outcome and reasoning of the re-matched game. From the judges running the game, the people in charge of the regional, and the observations of this thread and others that the judges were simply overwhelmed by the end of Saturday. For everyone involved it was a frustrating and draining experience, not just teams (such as myself) who feel that they lost because of poor reffing. We have not heard (or I have not seen) much input from the refs, but they are most likely second guessing hundreds of little choices they made throughout the weekend, just like we are reading these threads and wondering how things might have been done in a perfect world.
My personal motion is for a system where there are a set of refs inputting scores and fouls and another actually making the calls. Obviously this still does not work well if the refs are unaware of the rules, but it would certainly make it easier for them to keep their eyes on the game.
As for my personal thoughts of the outcome of the match, I do not think they would have been able to up enough points to win by the end of the round. I say this because if the ball would have been called dead as per 3.1.2 paragraph 5, our alliance would have been able to score more points and stay in the lead. Obviously this is a personal opinion, but it was frustrating to hear from my teammate and mentor involved with the rematch discussion that our win was void, and eventually wind up being the only original alliance member functional by the end of the last match.
I hope that no other teams have to experience the emotional roller-coaster we experienced, and that FIRST is able to find some way to prevent such frustrating events from occurring in the future. I am also glad that the FIRST community present in these discussions have kept their heads and are actively looking for answers.

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

I'm going to type this.....Then walk away for an hour or so, and either post or not post it. (Please do not attack the writing therein...I feel passionate & compassionate in sticking in my 2 cents here today). Call it personal therapy.

This is not a Ref problem IMHO as I see it (though they were certainly thrown head first into the deep depths of the following, and will not be rescued until 2015 Game Release and the beginning of match play then, I fully suspect. Which may just be much too late for many of those wonderful volunteers that are devoted to keeping FIRST games fair to all of the participants).

It is a Game Design Problem. No, that is incorrect. In my personal opinion, it is a whole and very serious host of Game Design Problems. (Sry GDC, usually you are up well above "being up to snuff", and it seems to go years from what I understand, between true poorly designed games, from what I have seen in my short time volunteering with FIRST.

This great game of Aerial Assist, is one of those minor to major failures though. (I personally read the complete rules beginning to end, 3 times myself, and all the updates, and hundreds of discussions here on CD, before we completed the bot build period & since (as what really interests & excites me the most personally as a mentor, beyond mentoring students of course), is the intricate game play and strategy itself. Usually quite AMAZING! This years game, just isn't the best of the best.

It is, what drew me to FRC and FIRST Competition...Formerly an NHRA drag race bracket racing champion, and a Stock Eliminator driver, who is used to rules and rules changes, and a thick rule book...The BOOK IS YOUR FRIEND, and YOU not knowing that rule book is your enemy, so YOU CAN BE YOUR ENEMY, and it can be your downfall before you even begin the playing the game...Or building a robot to compete within this game).

And then, I recently attempted to help teach a few of our own team human players during practice, how to play their very ever changing game positions, that they self admittedly (even after much prodding every day from every mentor, all around for weeks and weeks)....They had never even attempted to even read them for themselves until after they started to practice). That is of course, not a GDC error.

What I see...Too many conflicting rules to begin with, for each High School Student playing the game to begin to attempt to memorize this year (some of the Great Ref's. out there get confused as we see). Penalties that are too high to begin with, for the actual robot designs allowed, and then many too many rules changes after play began (wherein many teams were already eliminated for the season, after playing in their 1 and only Regional or 2). The rest of us are playing under a complete different rules set almost weekly.

Note: I messed this part up below, and had to go actually look at what the actual changes were again, before I could even type this next part correctly.....Sure glad I'm not a student human player. And I have age & experience on my side. (Or is that my enemy?)

From the current rule book Section 2.2.1 The Field
(as reads today 3-18-2014 @ 2:58 PM AZ Time...Will it change again?)

The HUMAN PLAYER BARRIER is a system that consists of horizontal pipes that are 1 ft. 8 in. above the floor and are supported by sheet metal struts that are integrated into the GUARDRAIL. The HUMAN PLAYER BARRIER extends 1 ft. 8 in. wider than the GUARDRAIL and creates a barricade between HUMAN PLAYERS and ROBOTS. The SAFETY ZONE is a 2 in. wide, infinitely tall region located 8 in. from the FIELD-side plane of the GUARDRAILS and is defined by yellow tape on the Human Player Barrier Brackets and the Human Player Barrier End Brackets.

(Emphasis mine above). Then looking at Figure 2-2b. That 12" side is the human player side. That SAFETY ZONE 2 in. wide, infinitely tall region located 8" from the field plane of the guardrail, & is actually taped 8" through 10" from the Field-side plane of the GUARDRAILS.

Note: Guardrail 2" + Human Player Barrier 1'-8" wider than the guardrail=Approx. 22" from Field-side plane of the guardrails. And then later, after Week Zero (not everyone has a Week Zero opportunity)...The SAFETY ZONE WAS MAGICALLY CREATED! (i understand the reasoning, HUMAN STUDENT SAFETY, and I applaud it).

Now, originally as released, the Human Players had from the field side plane/edge of the guardrail outward of the HUMAN PLAYER BARRIER or a full 22" of The HUMAN PLAYER BARRIER to play with inbounding that 24" or 25" Big Ball (Set the ball on the pipes, place a human hand on both sides and you are well within the Human Player Zone).

After week 1, the MAGIC SAFETY ZONE was created. So they were reduced to only 12" Human Player Barrier to play (mind you, the Human Player Zone lines taped to the floor never changed, and we didn't import a ton of very short armed students after Week Zero just to play this game).(Set the ball on the pipes now, place a human hand on both sides, and you well could have your fingertips well within the MAGIC & VERY COSTLY SAFETY Zone).

I personally instructed ours to set it on & roll it off the pipes into our bot, hands behind the ball, flick your wrists and fingertips up, w/ arms locked to your sides as 12"= shorter than most of their hands and wrists and forearms.

And to at all cost, avoid ever trying to fix their mistakes of missing a bot, and reaching to fix it, which comes very natural for teenagers, and that is hugely costly. Those bots were made to P.U. from the floor well I stressed. Do not hold the ball, put it into play on the field quickly. (Of course in reality, many times, they will be feeding a much different bot, and they will have to toss that ball.....I cannot stand the thought, to even look forward to watching it...But, they will all find their own way eventually.

I also agree though, it is much safer for our students. So keep that safety zone, allow for inadvertent crossing when it is NOT dangerous, and lower that penalty due to the much less space allowed to actually inbound that rather large ball. But, test and do it before game release next time please. Week 1 should be the Start of Competition Season...Not testing season for the game.

After Week 2... a slight amount of relief or leeway was evidentally given again w/ another rule change, concerning that SAFETY ZONE (though if you took a poll among students and mentors, and probably even Ref's this week (in Competition Week 4), you would get all kinds of crazy explainations of exactly what those Update Figures published & given actually do fully represent in the updates across the board). Just adds much more for a Ref to be subjective about...Like they need even 1 more thing in this game.

IE: Human players get 20" (or 22" sidelines..depending on what you read in the rulebook), sidelines to begin with on Game Release Day (just do not break the plane of the inside of the guardrail...DO NOT ENTER THE FIELD, Touch a bot, or touch a ball touching a bot, then removing 10" (8" inside from sideline inner rail given to the robots on occasion as long as it isn't intentional and repeated +2" Yellow Tape completes the newly created "2" wide/deep Safety Zone"), reducing them - Human Players, to only the outer 12" they originally had when the game was released, and this done right before actual game play begins between Week Zero and when Week 1 Matches start (I understand...In the name of Safety).

Then Week 1 game play begins and a ton of 50 point penalties are called (and admittedly not called), (some teams are done for the season at this point BTW)....So, begins another rules change order before Week 2 (we are now going to give some leeway, but attempt to figure out these quickly thrown together but decent figures posted in the update)....Now, I ask....How in the World can an average High School Student (yes, most of our students are well above average, but...), be expected to keep up w/ those constant (and very expensive on their behalf if they violate those ever changing rules), changes and not get confused and therefore...PENALIZED BIG? (The unusally high number of replays proves it).

So, what happens? Change the rules again. And, all this while those same rules in effect lay so much subjectiveness in super fast calls, all heaped upon so few refs (as this game would take 10 - and instant replays which are not allowed...we have a match schedule to keep you know,....to catch absolutely everything that happens, and then the use of those Uhm..Wonderful Touchpads that the Ref's have to actually look at to use often in the game, in my foolish opinion, not to mention lag time for the pads, requiring them to physically end a cycle by manual input, etc., etc., etc.).
__________________________________________________ _
And there are just so many this year, some rules conflict (like the dead ball must be called by a drive team w/ provided placard on inside of the clear driver station wall (only 1 per customer / & 1 used per Alliance per match please!)...Where the Ref's are absolutely not looking most of the time BTW in most of the vids I have seen so far that have had many stuck same color balls, (and opposite color balls where that card isn't even necessary, see below)..., If your Alliances ball get's caught up in your color robot). And, if that ball is later freed up (since it isn't declared field debris), you must clear it from the field (or, is it score it, I forget now after some vids I recently watched), before you can accumulate assist points...or any other points.

But, if caught in an opposing Alliances Robot (Blue on Red or Red on Blue), the Ref is supposed to instantly, if not cleared by the robot in question of course that is now posessing an opposing alliance ball, call the ball dead, end the cycle, light the pedestal to begin a new cycle, and declare that ball field debris.....Which is why this thread even exists.

(My personal strategy opinion Students...If any ball is declared field debris...Remove it through a 1 point goal as soon as reasonably possible...Get rid of it, debris or not). Just my opinion. As an extra ball on the field can just confuse all of you and the Ref's. too (I have seen it happen, it creates mass confusion), of either color.

Those 2 rules alone contradict each other BIG, are not complementary to each other, caused even the Head Ref confusion at the Utah Regional (subject of this thread BTW. I watched it live...He did look at the drivers station for a dead ball card...again rules confusion affected the Head Ref...and it isn't his fault in my opinion). Causing him to (not P.U. a book, to make the final call, which should have been A REPLAY Call under T16 "...error(s) by Field Personnel"), but, instead he called HQ, who settled the issue by determining that a replay was in order. The conflicting rules listed above caused that, more than not. Head Ref. IMHO...You are more than OFF THE HOOK, TY for your valuable time. (And I feel for all of you brothers and sisters officiating in 2014 Aerial Assist, even more than in many other years). Again Thank You!

That phone call, coming immediately after rules were violated across the board by allowing MENTORS to argue the calls blown due not IMHO to Ref error, but Game Rules Creation Errors, Field Element Errors, Software bugs & Rule Tinkering to make the squeeky wheels among us, happy after game release (some even in the name of safety), and then we have system bugs not discovered prior to the Game Release, a major thing or few called to the attention of FIRST HQ along the way, and hidden for a short period of time, instead of exposed early & fixed (until called out publicly here), like matches...lots of them at a single Regional w/ timing 20 seconds less than regulation game length, including all the eliminations matches (but not necessarily all of the qualifications matches).....I could go on forever and we are only beginning Week 4. Can't fix it now Sry...We have a a schedule to keep you know. (I need to not go there at all any further). It isn't my horse.

OK, my personal rant is almost over...Sry ALL.

My personal solution (and I DO NOT suggest it for anyone else, it is my personal solution only...and yes, it hurts me really bad, and yes, I will still be watching to the very last second of the Championships. I just will not be participating further this season). I have simply "opted out" of the balance of the 2014 FIRST FRC season. Call it rules heartbreak, and simple personal disgust & disappointment, (disappointments in life happen), but done w/ an air of Gracious Professionalism...I will not cause a scene, and I'm not attempting to here either. Just adding my 2 cents concerning the tread, and the causes in my opinion...Nobody's fault. Period.

My entire team, my Son(s) - 1 a Senior student competitor w/ an amazing brain & 4 year drive team member, programmer and all around leader, robot builder and great kid -1 an FTA in training that has spent a career doing what an FTA does, by helping wire the internet world we actually live in today, and my lovely Education/Mentor Wife (and now you), know I have opted out, and that I will not be joining them tomorrow night as they leave for their 1st competition of 2014- a Week 4 Regional.

They just do not actually truly know why yet. Any confusion as to why, on their part, is ALL MY FAULT (something else teamwise minor happened, but that only helped me w/ my actual decision)....I just have not explained fully yet. (The Aerial assist game excites me, but it also disappoints me highly).

Well, actually, I just did at length above explain it and here & now.

Compassion & Passion for FIRST, for the students, the game, all of the the wonderful, giving of their important time FIRST Employees, Mentors & volunteers, and especially compassion for the VOLUNTEER REF's that are stuck with the nasty volunteer job of officiating this particular game, this particular year, as your job is more than tough, it is IMPOSSIBLE to fully be fair in doing so (and it isn't one bit your fault)....This particular game is exciting to watch!....Also, it is...Too subjective, w/ too much going on, and there will be many continued blown or missed calls, and field problems due to no fault of your own, or anyone elses fault (I will also include here everyone in the GDC, as you tried hard, the game is exciting, and all the FIRST employees and others at HQ). It has to be hard for the GDC to come up w/ a winner game every year nonstop.

Folks...In life, I am no quitter. I troubleshoot computers for a living, and no dumb box has ever beat me, or ever will (even if it takes days and nights of constant sleep deprivation to solve the issues at hand)...My motto: "No Coffee too strong, no night too long, to get to the bottom of exactly what's wrong!" Stepping away is hard, even for a short bit. Buyers remorse? maybe.

In the world of both business and games though....Sometimes a project or product, is just so absolutely bad, that it should be scrapped. Sometimes, we have way too much invested in a project to just give up on it and call it a day or set in a delay. Cancel the project and move on? Shelve it and start another project?....Then, go back to that one when you have solved some of the worst issues, and killed off or fixed some of the minimal bugs that need fixing to be even a minimal of success. Some, you just have to make the best of a bad situation, and move on w/ the schedule and take your lump w/ a :) .

Businesses are lost everyday due to some people not knowing just when to stop or change course a bit, breathe deep, recover, then move on (because schedules have to just be kept, and a "the show must go on" mentality). In our case the schedule cannot be changed. Venues are reserved, rooms pd. for, school schedules are well, school schedules...The nature of our beast.

But, certain issues must be prioritized and handled first...and others dead last. Fix the field bugs first (but, additions to the field that were not in the designs are not 1 of those IMO, and the default game time should default reset, after every match in my opinion). Change HOW IT IS RUN AND OFFICIATED somehow first please FIRST, then, when it is all fixed on your end...Then and only then, listen to the whiners among us who didn't actually look at ALL the field drawings, and just say NO, SO SRY...those were the rules we released on release day, design to the rules (rule changes for safety reasons we need to understand, but if you reduce player space in one area, expand it on the floor in the same area).

The real reason I'm opting out....I personally do not want to do or say something at an event this year (A very possible G13, that I felt coming on from the soles of my feet welling up like a wave...Due to outright game rules frustration), that would reflect badly on the FIRST Community, my team, myself, or my family....And, you will not be able to hear me scream from my home, as I have screamed often Week 1-Week 3, while watching matches that are, at least to me (and many I see posting on CD), obviously unfair (though through absolutely no fault whatsoever of the officiants or the participants), while I multi-stream every match I can possibly view. I hope things get better as the season progresses though, for all involved.

Good luck to ALL the Teams (and everyone else too)...Go get em'...and don't "let that happen to you." Thanks for letting me rant...I needed that.
______________________________________________
BTW.....IMHO...HQ was correct on the call during the phone call. A replay should have been called; T16.... errors by Field Personnel (sadly to say, but it will continue to be the nature of this game, as that has occurred in many, many of the matches I have seen), and was necessary in this case due both to, the Ref not making a good call on the stuck Blue Ball in a Red Bot (on his own volition immediately, & as per the rule), and also for the Ref not lighting up of the Red pedestal (if it were actually the Ref's fault...very debatable from what I have seen so far and I have seen many, many matches w/ avail. rewind capabilities and use them often), at the conclusion of the completed cycle...And a yellow card violation of T13 (though there is no penalty specifically and actually listed for any violation of T13), or a called G6 Penalty:Robot Disable, for each NON-Pre-College age Student present, for significant delay of match (at the very least), should have been shown to each & every "MENTOR" that showed their face anywhere near that after match question box, without being called over personally by the Head Ref. (Sry MENTORS, or shall I say NON-Pre-College Age Students involved, but Rule T13 is plain & simple.

T13

If a TEAM needs clarification on a ruling or score, one (1) pre-college student from that TEAM should address the Head Referee after the ARENA reset signal (i.e. PLAYER STATION LED strings turn green). A TEAM member signals their desire to speak with the Head Referee by standing in a Red or Blue Question Box, which are located on the floor near each end of the scoring table. Depending on timing, the Head Referee may postpone any requested discussion until the end of the subsequent MATCH.

*Notice no actual penalty for violation there of the T13 questioning process actually exists? It may elsewhere, but, I have not found it.
_______________________________________________
Added later:

Also, I saw while watching the Sacramento Reg. last weekend a G6 D. "Changing Bumpers on the field", leading to an actual G14, for a scheduled qualifying rematch actually "caused by the officials" (and of course it was not called on the Alliance or Team), all due to the "we have to keep our schedule running attitude." Hurry up and fail never works as planned in business or pleasure. Keeping them off the field, and waiting for that bumper change to be completed would have been very proper. Allowing & requiring that change while on the field was absolutely not proper, according to that big blue box under G6. Specifically G6 D.

And, the not calling of a Stuck Red Ball when it was pinned between a Red lower goal and a Blue fallen over robot w/ no space to get to the ball without redbot continually bashing that stricken blue robot repeatedly, risking further damage to a disabled robot on its side, was absolutely criminal IMO at another event (either it was Week 3 Sacramento or Utah). I could go on and on & on.....I'll stop now though finally. Whew.

Just be as consistant in the calls as possible please. There are children watching.:) I am insenced, and my team has yet to even compete yet. (So this smart man is just staying home this time). But, I will be watching and cheering them all on. If it goes bad...I'll be in the SAFETY ZONE without getting penalized except for my personal decisions.

Go try to have fun kids! It isn't about the robot or the game. It is about learning and having fun right. STEM, and fairness too...But, sometimes life, just isn't fair. And that my friends is the lesson of Aerial Assist 2014.

A Very Valiant effort FIRST, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, and sometimes life just kicks you in the teeth for no reason at all, no matter how hard you try....That's why they made Dentists!::rtm::

OP...Build that frame stronger and go get em' next time.

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

For those not willing or wanting to read my idiotic book above...The nuts and bolts as I see it to the actual "replay call" only. Response to the OP.

IMHO...HQ was correct on the call during the phone call.

A replay should have been called; T16 ".... errors by Field Personnel" (sadly to say, but it will continue to be the nature of this game, as that has occurred in many, many of the matches I have seen), and was necessary in this case due both to, the Ref not making a good call on the stuck Blue Ball in a Red Bot (on his own volition immediately, & as per the rule), and also for the Ref not lighting up of the Red pedestal (if it were actually the Ref's fault...very debatable from what I have seen so far and I have seen many, many matches w/ avail. rewind capabilities and use them often), at the conclusion of the completed cycle...And a possible yellow card violation of T13 (though there is no penalty specifically and actually listed for any violation of T13), or a called G6 Penalty:Robot Disable, for each NON-Pre-College age Student present, for significant delay of match (at the very least), should have been shown to each & every "MENTOR" that showed their face anywhere near that after match question box, without being called over personally by the Head Ref. (Sry MENTORS, or shall I say NON-Pre-College Age Students involved, but Rule T13 is plain & simple.

T13

If a TEAM needs clarification on a ruling or score, one (1) pre-college student from that TEAM should address the Head Referee after the ARENA reset signal (i.e. PLAYER STATION LED strings turn green). A TEAM member signals their desire to speak with the Head Referee by standing in a Red or Blue Question Box, which are located on the floor near each end of the scoring table. Depending on timing, the Head Referee may postpone any requested discussion until the end of the subsequent MATCH.

*Notice no actual penalty for violation there of the T13 questioning process actually exists? It may elsewhere, but, I have not found it.

Just glad it was only a replay ordered in this instance.

Gracious Professionalism seems to being showed all around, given the circumstances. Keep that up please.

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.

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

Good gravy, you are serious.

If a referee does not know the rules he is basing his calls on, that is not fair to the players, the spectators, or the tournament. Expecting the refs to know what they are doing is a necessary part of the game.

What's not fair to the referees this year is making them do double duty as scorekeepers.

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

I don't think it can be put any better than this.

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

First off, are you associated with a FRC team? If so please put it in your name card so people can take you seriously.

Secondly, have you ever been a driver? If not, you will never know how annoying it is when a ref makes a call that is different than the rule states. Once you have experianced that, then you can talk about refs not knowing the rules like the back of their hand. Because until then, you are not crediable.

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

As I understand it, replays due to field/ref faults are supposed to happen, no matter who they affect. I don't agree with this rule, but it appears to be how its enforced (we had a replay due to our non-lighting pedestal when we won a match by like 60 points). By this logic, the match 'should' have been replayed. The whole timeout thing is a mess, and that's just wrong. I'm so sorry about all of it.


EDIT:
Although, I guess that's not actually the case. "affects the outcome of the match". Sorry guys. The match should not have been replayed either.

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

What I advicate for is not that the refs don't need to know the rules, its that if the ref has to make a decision, that they get the call right everytime is unreasonable. What team I have been associated with is not an issue, I have been associated with an FRC team, but it shouldn't reflect on the team, it is for this reason that I wish to remain anonymous. I still don't understand how what 4153 did that was considered sheilding however I do support the decision because that was the best decision that they could make. I was just trying to get a better understanding of why therefs made the call they did.

And I do know what it feels like when the refs make a wrong decision. To base my credibility on that is unreliable.

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

Thank you for clarifying what you are advocating for. In past posts it did not appear that was what you were advocating. I respect that you don't want what you post to reflect on your team. I know a head ref won't always make the correct call (but that is what the question box is for) but i believe it isn't unreasonable to expect any ref to know all the rules, and the occasional mis-call will be allowed as long as it either 1, doesn't effect the outcome of a match, or 2, is allowed to be questioned in the Q&A box. If the refs don't know the rules then there isn't anything preventing people from committing fouls that should have been called because a ref doesn't know a rule.

This is my opinion. Either know all the rules, or don't ref. It is that simple.

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

I can respect that. I just hope that the refs at champs do a better job than some I have seen at other regionals.

I saw 2996 at colorado at watched your matches from Utah I believe, you guys look good out there. Good luck at champs!

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

Thank you.

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

This isn't a tenable position. No one here that I'm aware of pretends to represent the views of their entire team, and no one holds anyone else to that unrealistic standard either. The problems with anonymity here include that, whatever your personal views, they need to be EXPRESSED in a way that represents your team well; i.e., respectful, and well thought out. Anonymity allows for and sometimes encourages troll behavior. It also draws attention to the question of who or what you might represent, rather than diffusing such questions. If you feel your message to CD might reflect poorly on your team if your team were known, maybe you need to rethink the message or your manner of expressing it instead.

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

Thanks for the advice and I will take that into account in the future. I would like to apologize to anyone who may have taken my search for some answers, and ,maybe some of my own thoughts, personally, or thought that my intent was not professional or inquisitive. I was just trying to search for some answers on my questions from this season.

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

Okay so hypothetical, at colorado in SF 2-1, 2996 got pushed halfway into 4153, now same result only the team halfway into the opposing robot put themselves there intentionally. To clairfy I am not talking about the exact situation in Colorado just a similar hypothetical, would there be a pin and a G28 called. I have no idea, just wanted to know.

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

Yes. If a robot was playing defence and they ended up stuck on another robot without being pushed on that robot, then that would be a pin. We got pushed, hence no foul.

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

First, there is a G18 violation (supported by another robot). If they are pushed, then G14 applies, and G18 is not called. Note: This presumes that bot rode up onto the other bot to be halfway into the opposing robot.

Similarly for G28 (violating the frame perimeter), if they are pushed, then G14 applies, and G28 is not called.

If "put themselves there intentionally", then that is a clear G18 violation (assuming bot rode up onto the other bot) and/or G28 (deliberate).

You have not explained why pin (G29) applies. If it does (the other robot cannot move), then the same analysis applies. Or, are you arguing that that is pushed onto the other robot is pinned because it cannot move off the other robot. An interesting interpretation of the rule. I would not call G29, and call G14 instead. If they called G29, then they have to explain why they did not call G18 or G28 on you. By calling G14, any violations you have are waived.

The question is: Does G14 get called. There are times when an alliance forces the opponent to violate a rule. Sometimes G14 and the opponent violation are not called because it was an inadvertent G14. The simplest example being: Red is inbounding a ball. Blue is between the Human player and the red robot. Human player does a sissy throw and the ball lands squarely in the Blue robot. Blue immediately ejects the red ball.

Regarding whether the Ref's should know all the rules:

Like I said, if it involves game play, then the Head Ref should know that rule inside and out.

With most rules, the Ref's know a violation has occurred, but could not cite the exact rule at that second. After a match, the Ref's confer on the various fouls observed (whether indicated by a call, or not), and then the fouls are finalized. During this time, they discuss the details of the infraction and the rule (frame violation occurred - was there damage, or did it seem intentional).

In an ideal world, the Ref's could watch hours of video on each rule (all the nuances) so that by the time of the matches, they would know each rule inside and out. In reality, at the Regional, especially the earlier ones, the qualification matches are the first time they see how the rules play out in real life.

And, when they change a rule mid season, such as G27 on ramming, there is a lot of interpretation on what was intended. What do they mean by "Strategies aimed at ... damage ... such as high-speed ... ramming". Does that mean all high-speed ramming is a foul? Obviously if damage resulted, then that is a foul. Otherwise, how do you discern intent in order for it to be a strategy to cause damage, rather than just getting there fast for a good defense? If Red Bot comes across court full speed to hit and move Blue Bot that is positioning itself to catch a truss throw, isn't that the way the game is played?

Also, there is a lot to watch. 4 refs watch the balls - 2 refs for each color. 2 of them only follow the ball - the other 2 break off, such as when a ball is about to be scored they shift attention to the ball on the pedestal. The rest watch everything else. If a Ref is watching the ball, they may not see the opponent coming up until it is upon the ball. At that point, it is too late to figure out what happened prior to the infraction to discern intent. Although a Ref may have seen the incident, they may not have been watching for the infraction, and thus not have enough information to make the call.

Here is a simple one to think about: Ball is sitting on the safety zone rail between the human player and the robot. What happens?

The Human Player can ask field personnel to give them the ball. that is a safe, but time consuming option.

The Human Player can pick up the ball, but make sure they do not go past the appropriate line. What is the applicable line? Well, it depends upon where the robots are. The G40 rule that everyone thinks about.

But, what if a robot is touching the ball? then G41 applies, and HP can't touch the ball, even to push the portion of the ball that is over the guard rail in the human player area.

If that is the first time you have seen the situation (and I only saw it once after being at two regionals), then you are going through all the rules in your head to figure out what you should be looking for. It is the scenario you didn't think about to be prepared when it occurs.

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

G14 doesn't apply every time an alliance forces the opposing alliance to take a foul. It only applies when the alliance is employing a strategy in causing the othe alliance to take a foul.

In other words, it must be clear that they're intentionally causing the other alliance to take a foul for G14 to apply.

Whether that should be the case or not is another story.