Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   FRC Blog - My Bad Call (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=128623)

Travis Hoffman 08-04-2014 10:09

FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...og-My-Bad-Call


Quote:

My Bad Call

Blog Date:
Tuesday, April 8, 2014 - 09:28
Over the weekend, I made a bad call. I was contacted by the field at the Silicon Valley Regional about Team 1323, MadTown Robotics, regarding a backup coupon they had turned in during the Semi Finals. My understanding at the time was that 1323 had called for a backup team for themselves, but had repaired their robot later and still wanted to participate in the match. I told the field this should not be allowed, as requesting a backup team, like requesting a timeout, is a strategic decision that a team must make, and there is no provision in the rules for allowing a team to change their minds later based on how potential repairs are progressing or for any other reason.

I learned later that there was some question about whether 1323 had intended to request a backup team, or had accidentally submitted the wrong form, believing they had instead requested a timeout. I contacted the team, along with the FTA and Head Referee, to get their understanding of the full sequence of events. After reviewing the information, I now believe the team had intended all along to call a timeout, but in the rush to get the form submitted, did not notice they were using the wrong one. There were a few brief conversations between the team members and the Head Referee during this situation, but with the Head Referee believing with good reason the team had requested a backup, and the team believing with good reason they had requested a timeout, they had different contexts for those discussions, so the full nature of the issue took time to reveal itself.

The team did submit their backup coupon, but had I believed at the time this was an accident, I would have allowed them to compete. While I can’t undo what has been done, as a measure of compensation for the team, I am offering Team 1323 a Wild Card slot to the 2014 FIRST Championship. Their original alliance partners, Team 846, The Funky Monkeys, and Team 2135, Presentation Invasion, have already earned their slots at Championship. With this offer, I am not attempting to suggest the outcome of the event would have been different had 1323 been allowed to compete. There is no certain way to predict that. The Winners and Finalists of the 2014 Silicon Valley Regional are still the Winners and Finalists, and this takes nothing away from those significant accomplishments.

To prevent this from happening again, we are changing the backup coupon to require the Alliance Captain to enter the number of the team whose robot is being replaced, and to initial the coupon. Head Referees will be instructed to not accept the coupon unless these elements are present. This should help prevent this issue in the future.

I apologize to the teams involved in this situation, and the community, for the stress this caused. I want to emphasize that I believe all key volunteers at the event were doing their very best with a confusing situation, and had the best interests of FRC at heart. We have some great volunteers at SVR. I made the final call, so the ultimate responsibility for the result lies with me.

Frank

Damiaen_Florian 08-04-2014 10:17

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Very very professionally handled by Frank, he took responsibility into his own hands and took blame for the mistakes that were made, glad to hear that this worked out for all parties involved.

Jay O'Donnell 08-04-2014 10:17

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Gotta love Frank being able to admit when he's wrong. Glad to see 1323 going to champs!

PayneTrain 08-04-2014 10:18

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
What am I going to do with all of these torches and pitchforks now?

Koko Ed 08-04-2014 10:20

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by PayneTrain (Post 1371079)
What am I going to do with all of these torches and pitchforks now?

Considering how everyone has the hair trigger sensitivity of Nitro Glycerin and what's at stake this week and down in St. Louis you can bet you'll get good use out of them pretty soon.

dodar 08-04-2014 10:21

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by PayneTrain (Post 1371079)
What am I going to do with all of these torches and pitchforks now?

Sell them to an angry mob for premium prices.

MechEng83 08-04-2014 10:25

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Frank has a knack for addressing issues in a manner most directors/leaders/officials should emulate. I truly appreciate his openness and transparency. It speaks volumes of his character that he's willing to admit a mistake and find the most equitable solution given the circumstances.

dag0620 08-04-2014 10:28

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
+1 Frank. Always happy with the way he deals with situations.

aspiece 08-04-2014 10:35

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Truck Town Thunder, FRC Team 68, commends Frank for this demonstration of Gracious Professionalism. We look forward to earning a spot this year and hope they are in our Division at the FIRST Championships.

AlecMataloni 08-04-2014 10:37

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Couldn't have handled it better . A+.

(Puts away pitchfork)

Travis Hoffman 08-04-2014 10:41

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Unsure how I feel about the Wild Card, as I would imagine a waitlisted team who hasn't been to the CMP since 2012 or earlier is now going to receive an email telling them they will have to wait longer for that opportunity. I'm also not sure how many other teams who believe they were in a similar, if less publicized, boat as 1323 will feel about that decision.

It is unquestionable, however, that 1323 is an outstanding team with a robot that is absolutely Championship worthy, and I know they will make the most out of the opportunity they have been given.

Regardless of the Wild Card, +1 for Frank's public mea culpa and the changes to the coupon process. Now keep going!

The larger, unresolved issue of this season remains, one that has impacted not only teams, but also many volunteers, and I would hope Frank and HQ are gearing up to address the issue in some meaningful, experience-improving fashion:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman (Post 1369323)
FIRST CAN do better - they can and should invest more resources into solving these problems that have popped up to varying degrees in years past, but nowhere near as frequently or as severely as the "perfect storm" of troubles observed during this Aerial Assist season. I don't think anyone should feel comfortable accepting anything less than FIRST's very best effort in this regard.

If FIRST does indeed publicly speak out to us and ensure that they are committed to solving these issues, if they develop and share a well thought out plan of improvement, I am fairly certain that frustrated mentors, students, and - perhaps most importantly - key volunteers we are at risk of losing next season will stand behind them, patiently waiting to see what kind of meaningful positive changes they can bring to the overall game experience for next season.


jblay 08-04-2014 10:44

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
This was the right thing to do, I'm glad FIRST and Frank stepped up here. That match shouldn't have been the last for 1323's seniors and now it won't be.

S.P.A.M.er 17 08-04-2014 10:53

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
I tried to post this in a comment on the blog, but it set of the SPAM filter for some reason. I was planning on posting it here anyway.

"This mistake was caught, and handled in an efficient amount of time. It is a good when people catch their mistakes, and explain their reasoning. Just an explanation would have been a great start to helping the teams involved, but extending the wildcard was a full remedy, and a great decision. The question I now have is; why hasn't something similar happened for the Orlando events? A controversial call was made in Orlando, and it could have affected one team their spot to championship. Why are you picking and choosing certain controversial calls to not only address, but also remedy and not others? Those teams deserve an explanation for what transpired, especially since they have given theirs."

I am happy that 1323 now has a bid for championship, and FIRST definitely went down the right road to fix the situation. But as I said in my comment, why are they picking and choosing what to address? This is HQ's second questionable call of the season, and since they decided to address this one, why shouldn't they have to address the first one?

pfreivald 08-04-2014 11:05

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
The right call for an unpleasant situation. +1 Frank!

Foster 08-04-2014 11:08

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
I have a question, what does the form / card look like for timeouts and substitutions?

BigJ 08-04-2014 11:09

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Foster (Post 1371118)
I have a question, what does the form / card look like for timeouts and substitutions?

You get 2 small slips of paper (like, newspaper coupon sized). One says "BACKUP COUPON", the other says "TIME-OUT COUPON".

The wording might be slightly different, but I just looked at a pair of them on Saturday.

Chris is me 08-04-2014 11:12

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
I'd like to join the chorus of posters in commending Frank for an excellent decision and a gracious admission of mistake. It takes quite the person to own up to something like this, publicly. What a guy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.P.A.M.er 17 (Post 1371108)
I tried to post this in a comment on the blog, but it set of the SPAM filter for some reason. I was planning on posting it here anyway.

"This mistake was caught, and handled in an efficient amount of time. It is a good when people catch their mistakes, and explain their reasoning. Just an explanation would have been a great start to helping the teams involved, but extending the wildcard was a full remedy, and a great decision. The question I now have is; why hasn't something similar happened for the Orlando events? A controversial call was made in Orlando, and it could have affected one team their spot to championship. Why are you picking and choosing certain controversial calls to not only address, but also remedy and not others? Those teams deserve an explanation for what transpired, especially since they have given theirs."

I am happy that 1323 now has a bid for championship, and FIRST definitely went down the right road to fix the situation. But as I said in my comment, why are they picking and choosing what to address? This is HQ's second questionable call of the season, and since they decided to address this one, why shouldn't they have to address the first one?

A difference in these scenarios is that while 1323 was a match or two away from qualifying via wild card, the Orlando alliance had to win the semis and the finals to qualify. There were 4-6 matches in the way of the 233 alliance qualifying, but just two in the way of 1323 qualifying. In the past FRC HQ has been more willing to do this when the mistake alone could have cost them a trip to the Championship, while we have no way of knowing if the 233 alliance would have won in the end.

Travis Hoffman 08-04-2014 11:20

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 1371123)
A difference in these scenarios is that while 1323 was a match or two away from qualifying via wild card, the Orlando alliance had to win the semis and the finals to qualify. There were 4-6 matches in the way of the 233 alliance qualifying, but just two in the way of 1323 qualifying. In the past FRC HQ has been more willing to do this when the mistake alone could have cost them a trip to the Championship, while we have no way of knowing if the 233 alliance would have won in the end.

HQ adjudicating which transgressions get freebies and which don't is a slippery slope - one which invites public discussions about which teams have been *more wronged* by game and/or administrative blar beyond their control.

I'd prefer HQ focus their efforts on minimizing the controllable root causes that lead to such transgressions occurring. That is the kind of "freebie" I think all teams would genuinely appreciate!

Tom Bottiglieri 08-04-2014 11:21

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Thanks to Frank and FRC HQ for doing what they could to "try and make it right" for 1323. I'm not going to lie, I was more upset than I have ever been at an FRC event leaving SVR Saturday afternoon (including after Einstein 2012). While this update doesn't completely wash out the bad taste in my mouth, it was definitely the right thing to do for 1323.

I'm really excited for 1323 to be coming to champs. Their robot and team is just plain awesome and they will make some noise in whatever division they end up in. Go Madtown!

D.Allred 08-04-2014 11:30

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris is me (Post 1371123)
A difference in these scenarios is that while 1323 was a match or two away from qualifying via wild card, the Orlando alliance had to win the semis and the finals to qualify. There were 4-6 matches in the way of the 233 alliance qualifying, but just two in the way of 1323 qualifying. In the past FRC HQ has been more willing to do this when the mistake alone could have cost them a trip to the Championship, while we have no way of knowing if the 233 alliance would have won in the end.

For Orlando, I feel that acknowledgement of the situation and improving the inspection process to address future misunderstandings are more important than a remedy for the affected teams.

(I see Travis already handled it...)

Koko Ed 08-04-2014 11:32

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BigJ (Post 1371119)
You get 2 small slips of paper (like, newspaper coupon sized). One says "BACKUP COUPON", the other says "TIME-OUT COUPON".

The wording might be slightly different, but I just looked at a pair of them on Saturday.

When I was Field Supervisor @ Boston I custom made my own tickets for the teams. The Time Out Card featured a Clock. The Robot Replacement Card had a Kitsy Cute Robot on it and the Battery Card had a charge logo on it. They were all made separately on card stock and fairly large so they were easy to tell apart.

Reanna 08-04-2014 11:38

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Foster (Post 1371118)
I have a question, what does the form / card look like for timeouts and substitutions?

This is what they looked like at SVR apparently, quoting Chinmay from the top of page 3 of the SVR thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chinmay (Post 1369623)
Edit: this is apparently what they look like http://imgur.com/iHFx9gU so not the easiest thing to mess up, but im sure it is hard to keep track of them when robots are having problems and students are stressed.


plnyyanks 08-04-2014 11:42

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by BigJ (Post 1371119)
You get 2 small slips of paper (like, newspaper coupon sized). One says "BACKUP COUPON", the other says "TIME-OUT COUPON".

The wording might be slightly different, but I just looked at a pair of them on Saturday.

Here's a screencap of the new version (previously, the lines for robot to be replaced an initial weren't there). They look pretty similar, especially pre-revision.

Attachment 16792

Foster 08-04-2014 11:43

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Thanks for the info on this. I had figured they were easy to confuse, only a one word difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Koko Ed (Post 1371143)
When I was Field Supervisor @ Boston I custom made my own tickets for the teams. The Time Out Card featured a Clock. The Robot Replacement Card had a Kitsy Cute Robot on it and the Battery Card had a charge logo on it. They were all made separately on card stock and fairly large so they were easy to tell apart.

Sounds like a good idea. Then the ref and the submitter can look at the picture and say "what does that mean to YOU?"

----

I don't have a dog in the fight, but I can see people coming out of the shadows saying "well we had a bad call in Qual 21 and we would have won and that would have moved us up 7 spots in the ranking and the number one seed would have chosen us and we would be going to worlds...."

+1 for Frank, did some research, talked to all the participants and made the best repair he could. Sorry team xyz you missed on getting off the wait list, but who knows, maybe you are now #1 on the 2015 wait list.

scooty199 08-04-2014 11:48

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
A great response from Frank. Great news for 1323 as well.

Hate to mention that negative side, but Travis does raise a point that selective addressing of issues can lead to a very slippery slope, and sets a bad precedent.

AdamHeard 08-04-2014 11:49

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by scooty199 (Post 1371158)
A great response from Frank. Great news for 1323 as well.

Hate to mention that negative side, but Travis does raise a point that selective addressing of issues can lead to a very slippery slope, and sets a bad precedent.

This isn't a new thing though.

All the way back in 2008 the entire finalists alliance at SVR were given Champs spots.

pfreivald 08-04-2014 11:50

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman (Post 1371132)
HQ adjudicating which transgressions get freebies and which don't is a slippery slope - one which invites public discussions about which teams have been *more wronged* by game and/or administrative blar beyond their control.

I'd prefer HQ focus their efforts on minimizing the controllable root causes that lead to such transgressions occurring. That is the kind of "freebie" I think all teams would genuinely appreciate!

While I agree with the latter paragraph, I have to take some exception to the former; policies that remove adjudication (that is, judgment) lead to ridiculous things like second graders getting suspended for chewing their Pop Tarts to look like pistols.

"Zero-tolerance" polices are zero-thought policies specifically because they strip the adjudicating body of the ability to apply judgment and reason to the situation, and that makes them bad policy.

So yes, HQ should do everything they can to minimize all situations wherein such calls have to be made in the first place, but when those transgressions occur, the use of judgment to arrive at the most desirable (or least undesirable) outcome is not a slippery slope, it's necessary for sane and reasonable policy.

S.P.A.M.er 17 08-04-2014 12:04

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Foster (Post 1371154)
I don't have a dog in the fight, but I can see people coming out of the shadows saying "well we had a bad call in Qual 21 and we would have won and that would have moved us up 7 spots in the ranking and the number one seed would have chosen us and we would be going to worlds...."

The difference is that in Qual 21, the head ref would have been the one that made the call, the team could have gone to the question box, and things would have been addressed then. When things come straight from HQ (like in Orlando and SVR), it is a little different. You do not get a chance to argue your point; the facts are given to HQ (by someone who might not have the facts completely straight) and then the gavel comes down to give the decision.

HQ calls were made in both situations, and in SVR's case, it was acknowledged as a mistake and remedied (A wildcard handed out, and a change in the backup coupon system). I would like to see something similar happen for Orlando. Not necessarily a wildcard being distributed, but FIRST acknowledging something went wrong, and how the plan to prevent it from happening again (as D.Allerd and Travis said).

Andrew Schreiber 08-04-2014 12:17

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by S.P.A.M.er 17 (Post 1371167)
The difference is that in Qual 21, the head ref would have been the one that made the call, the team could have gone to the question box, and things would have been addressed then. When things come straight from HQ (like in Orlando and SVR), it is a little different. You do not get a chance to argue your point; the facts are given to HQ (by someone who might not have the facts completely straight) and then the gavel comes down to give the decision.

HQ calls were made in both situations, and in SVR's case, it was acknowledged as a mistake and remedied (A wildcard handed out, and a change in the backup coupon system). I would like to see something similar happen for Orlando. Not necessarily a wildcard being distributed, but FIRST acknowledging something went wrong, and how the plan to prevent it from happening again (as D.Allerd and Travis said).


Except nothing went wrong in the Orlando situation on HQ's side. The robot's competed illegally and were, rightfully, red carded. That's the rules from HQ's perspective. Now, as to whether they were told it was ok or not... that's an entirely different issue but is NOT at HQ's level. It's at the level of the LRI.

dodar 08-04-2014 12:20

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber (Post 1371178)
Except nothing went wrong in the Orlando situation on HQ's side. The robot's competed illegally and were, rightfully, red carded. That's the rules from HQ's perspective. Now, as to whether they were told it was ok or not... that's an entirely different issue but is NOT at HQ's level. It's at the level of the LRI.

So its ok for a LRI to be wrong?

What sounds worse: a LRI knocks a team out or HQ knocks a team out?

Akash Rastogi 08-04-2014 12:25

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dodar (Post 1371183)
So its ok for a LRI to be wrong?

What sounds worse: a LRI knocks a team out or HQ knocks a team out?

To be very blunt, HQ knocking a team out sounds worse.

But I think Andrew is right. I also think this was handled differently because Frank had more information about what went wrong. HQ can't always make calls like this, but when they can, I'm glad they do.

dodar 08-04-2014 12:28

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Akash Rastogi (Post 1371184)
To be very blunt, HQ knocking a team out sounds worse.

But I think Andrew is right. I also think this was handled differently because Frank had more information about what went wrong. HQ can't always make calls like this, but when they can, I'm glad they do.

I think the LRI/Head Ref retroactively DQing an alliance after they were told they were good is far worse.

And if its different because Frank had more information, then why didnt he get more information from the Orlando Regional? This event was never even brought up in a blog post or anything by FIRST.

bkahl 08-04-2014 12:30

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
This decision was very professional of Frank. I truly think there was only one solution to this whole debacle, and Frank got it right.

TikiTech 08-04-2014 12:31

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Foster (Post 1371154)
Sorry team xyz you missed on getting off the wait list, but who knows, maybe you are now #1 on the 2015 wait list.

I do not think the waitlist is much of an option this year..per Frank

Waitlist

Many FRC teams have already earned their way to the FIRST® Championship in April through their performance at events, and a high percentage of teams have accepted those slots when offered. Just a reminder that we expect very few waitlist slots to be available. The number available may be just a couple, or even zero.

Frank



I am sure this was a difficult but was a well discussed issue at FIRST HQ.

+1 Frank!


Aloha!

Thad House 08-04-2014 12:31

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
I think FIRST handled this in a very professional way. There will always be people that don't like when teams selectively get invited. But every issue is different and needs to be handled in a different way.

What I'm more excited about is that ever since Frank took over FRC director, things have become much more open to the community, and instead off all of us just sitting in the dark, we get answers and how they are going to fix things. I suspect that they want to say some things about how this year is going, but I think they are waiting until after competition season is over in order to acknowledge them.

Michael Corsetto 08-04-2014 12:32

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Bottiglieri (Post 1371134)
Thanks to Frank and FRC HQ for doing what they could to "try and make it right" for 1323. I'm not going to lie, I was more upset than I have ever been at an FRC event leaving SVR Saturday afternoon (including after Einstein 2012). While this update doesn't completely wash out the bad taste in my mouth, it was definitely the right thing to do for 1323.

I'm really excited for 1323 to be coming to champs. Their robot and team is just plain awesome and they will make some noise in whatever division they end up in. Go Madtown!

Ditto to everything here. Can't wait to see 1323 tear it up at champs!

FIRST may want to reconsider the way they handle tricky situations that come up at competition. Currently, it seems like a very disconnected way to manage situations that often have many sides to them. I'd love to see Frank or whoever else at HQ talk to not only FTA's, Head Refs, LRI's, etc, but maybe a student or two on a team being affected by the ruling?

Not sure if this is feasible, but worth thinking about. Regardless, thank you Frank for connecting with Madtown and coming to the right conclusion. Glad we made it to the finals with 368 to open up that extra spot ;)

-Mike

Swan217 08-04-2014 12:36

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber (Post 1371178)
Except nothing went wrong in the Orlando situation on HQ's side. The robot's competed illegally and were, rightfully, red carded. That's the rules from HQ's perspective. Now, as to whether they were told it was ok or not... that's an entirely different issue but is NOT at HQ's level. It's at the level of the LRI.

I see a lot of similarities between this call & Orlando:

Quote:

I learned later that there was some question about whether 1323 had intended to request a backup team, or had accidentally submitted the wrong form, believing they had instead requested a timeout. I contacted the team, along with the FTA and Head Referee, to get their understanding of the full sequence of events. After reviewing the information, I now believe the team had intended all along to call a timeout, but in the rush to get the form submitted, did not notice they were using the wrong one. There were a few brief conversations between the team members and the Head Referee during this situation, but with the Head Referee believing with good reason the team had requested a backup, and the team believing with good reason they had requested a timeout, they had different contexts for those discussions, so the full nature of the issue took time to reveal itself.

The team did submit their backup coupon, but had I believed at the time this was an accident, I would have allowed them to compete.

...

I apologize to the teams involved in this situation, and the community, for the stress this caused. I want to emphasize that I believe all key volunteers at the event were doing their very best with a confusing situation, and had the best interests of FRC at heart. We have some great volunteers at SVR. I made the final call, so the ultimate responsibility for the result lies with me.
So the question is: Did FIRST contact Pink / Bacon like they contacted this team, and likewise determined that in Orlando these teams did NOT make a mistake & were not acting in good faith? Or did they not bother then, but now they did? Seems to me that HQ is making a few decisions this season without getting enough information, which indicates a procedural failure.

Andrew Schreiber 08-04-2014 12:37

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dodar (Post 1371183)
So its ok for a LRI to be wrong?

What sounds worse: a LRI knocks a team out or HQ knocks a team out?

Calm down. I never said it was ok. Jesus, what is it with people this season and jumping down my throat?

I'm saying that HQ made a bad call in the SVR case. I'm also saying that there's potential that the LRI made a bad call in the Orlando case. HQ should fix this because the origin of the bad call is with them. HQ should NOT fix Orlando because they were just following the rules. They SHOULD look into what caused it to make sure it can't happen again.

IF (and this is a huge if) the LRI knocked out that alliance intentionally there's a big issue. But it's not one that a couple wild card spots will sort out.

dodar 08-04-2014 12:40

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber (Post 1371198)
Calm down. I never said it was ok. Jesus, what is it with people this season and jumping down my throat?

I'm saying that HQ made a bad call in the SVR case. I'm also saying that there's potential that the LRI made a bad call in the Orlando case. HQ should fix this because the origin of the bad call is with them. HQ should NOT fix Orlando because they were just following the rules. They SHOULD look into what caused it to make sure it can't happen again.

IF (and this is a huge if) the LRI knocked out that alliance intentionally there's a big issue. But it's not one that a couple wild card spots will sort out.

Where do you see the angst in my post? I merely posed the question.

Both outcomes came from calls to FIRST HQ.

indubitably 08-04-2014 12:47

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber (Post 1371198)
I'm saying that HQ made a bad call in the SVR case. I'm also saying that there's potential that the LRI made a bad call in the Orlando case. HQ should fix this because the origin of the bad call is with them. HQ should NOT fix Orlando because they were just following the rules. They SHOULD look into what caused it to make sure it can't happen again.

I would argue that in the SVR case they were following the rules more explicitly than in the Orlando case. It was just easier to go back and see where the mistake was made. I don't see the obvious reason to choose one over the other.

Koko Ed 08-04-2014 12:49

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by dodar (Post 1371199)
Where do you see the angst in my post? I merely posed the question.

Both outcomes came from calls to FIRST HQ.

There was angst in your post.
You aint the only one. There's alot of wound up people on the board these days.It may be a good time to take a day or so off to get the blood pressure down.

dodar 08-04-2014 12:53

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Koko Ed (Post 1371205)
There was angst in your post.
You aint the only one. There's alot of wound up people on the board these days.It may be a good time to take a day or so off to get the blood pressure down.

If it came off as I was angrily posting I am sorry. I simply was posing a question as to the thought of which would seem worse. I didnt feel I had written my post in a manner that seemed to jump out at someone with capitalized or exclamations or anything like that.

lemiant 08-04-2014 12:59

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
This is the absolute best way they could handle this situation.
+1 Frank.

RohitD 08-04-2014 13:04

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
This is seriously the best news I've heard all day. Congratulations to team 1323 for a well deserved spot.

Chris Fultz 08-04-2014 13:22

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jay O'Donnell (Post 1371077)
Gotta love Frank being able to admit when he's wrong.

I don't know that i would say Frank was "wrong". He made the decision he made with the information that was available / given to him at the time. As it turns out, that information was not complete. During the event, he made the right decision with the wrong information (he thought the team wanted a back-up, then got repaired, and changed their mind).

Later, given new / more information, he changed his decision to reflect the actual situation.

I think this is a great outcome.

Jon Stratis 08-04-2014 13:26

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Is there a post somewhere detailing what happened in Orlando? This is the first I've heard about it, searching isn't turning up anything useful, and I'm curious...

dodar 08-04-2014 13:29

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Jon Stratis (Post 1371227)
Is there a post somewhere detailing what happened in Orlando? This is the first I've heard about it, searching isn't turning up anything useful, and I'm curious...

If you go to Youtube and look up the Orlando Regional, both 233 and 179 were interviewed by TheRoboShow about the incident.

S.P.A.M.er 17 08-04-2014 13:29

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber (Post 1371178)
The robot's competed illegally and were, rightfully, red carded.

That is what was announced at Orlando. However it is not fair to the teams involved. They made it sound completely intentional, which would mean that 233, 624, and 1902 were purposely trying to gain an advantage illegally to win the competition. Not acknowledging there may have been a mix-up, implies that was exactly what those teams were trying to do. It also means that all the statements the teams gave after the fact were not true, and further casts shadows on three very reputable teams.

Quote:

I was contacted by the field at the Silicon Valley Regional about Team 1323, MadTown Robotics, regarding a backup coupon they had turned in during the Semi Finals. My understanding at the time was that 1323 had called for a backup team for themselves, but had repaired their robot later and still wanted to participate in the match. I told the field this should not be allowed, as requesting a backup team, like requesting a timeout, is a strategic decision that a team must make, and there is no provision in the rules for allowing a team to change their minds later based on how potential repairs are progressing or for any other reason.
At the time, Frank believed that a team was purposely trying to game the system to gain an advantage. What makes 1323 saying that they weren't doing this any different than 233, 624, and 1902 saying they weren't doing this? (I wholly believe 1323 was NOT doing this, I just want to make the comparison). The Orlando teams deserve more than what was just announced at the competition. It isn't about the trip to championship, but the implications that could be made without comment from FIRST.

coalhot 08-04-2014 13:43

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Schreiber (Post 1371198)
IF (and this is a huge if) the LRI knocked out that alliance intentionally there's a big issue. But it's not one that a couple wild card spots will sort out.

I don't recall anyone in the Orlando thread mentioning that it was the LRI who let Bacon (or was in on any discussions to) put the spare batteries on the robot. All the threads pointed to a RI saying it was OK and presiding over the reinspection. Having volunteered as a RI and FTAA these past two years, I would probably have asked the LRI first on a ruling of legality, and then asked for the LRI to inform the field personnel of the ruling, so there wouldn't be any miscommunication issues. However, there may be sides of the story I haven't read, so I won't pass judgement on the Orlando situation.

+1 for Frank. Nice to see that HQ takes issues like the SVR one seriously, and fixes them quickly.

Jared Russell 08-04-2014 13:53

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Thanks to Frank for explaining the situation and trying to make it right. Mistakes happen to everyone, and it is how we deal with them that shows our true character. We can all learn a lot about how to deal with a bad situation from the actions of 1323 and Frank these past couple of days.

It stinks for other teams that, for one reason or another, also had their seasons prematurely shortened. I am not in a position to say that these teams are any less deserving of a spot at the Championships, but I am just glad that in this case FIRST got it right.

jvriezen 08-04-2014 13:58

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Several are wondering why Frank/FIRST have not addressed other seemingly similar situations publicly as has been done here.

While I have no specific 'inside' information regarding any of the situations, lets give Frank/FIRST/HQ the benefit of the doubt here. It is clear that when the situation lends itself, a public explanation such as today's is given and the resolution is a good one. It could be that circumstances around other situations are such that a public 'airing' of the situation and its resolution is not in the best interest when all affected parties are considered. That doesn't mean that a best case resolution hasn't been made in ways that are not made public. FIRST has had more transparency in recent times, but that does not mean they can always be fully transparent on all matters.

The directly affected parties for such issues deserve to have their concerns considered and typically will communicate directly with FIRST. The rest of the FIRST community is not entitled to have all matters and their resolutions explained to them as doing so may compromise some confidential information or have other undesirable effects. In some cases, parties are asked not to discuss resolutions with others as part of the resolution. This is the way it works in the real world, folks. Again, I am in no way saying that anything like this HAS happened in any situation (I have no clue), just saying that hearing nothing doesn't always mean you can assume nothing has happened. If you are not a directly effected party, assume that you do not have all the facts and your conclusions are suspect. This was the case for some CD posters concerning the SVR issue, prior to Frank's blog post.

Thank you Frank for all you do for FRC.

sbrierty 08-04-2014 14:05

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Since there seems to be some lingering confusion on the Orlando situation I'm posting the link to the thread that has posts from 1902, 624, and 233.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...127083&page=12

Judge for yourselves how similar or not the situation is compared with SVR. It seems in both situations Frank was asked to make a decision with incomplete or incorrect information.

**EDIT** 233 is the only alliance member left who does not currently have a spot at Championship. (They were also the alliance captain of that #1 seed)

Travis Hoffman 08-04-2014 15:55

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by TikiTech (Post 1371190)
I do not think the waitlist is much of an option this year..per Frank

While that may be, at the very minimum, it was a waitlist of 1, correct? 1323 did not qualify through normal means, nor were they on the CMP waitlist, as they competed there last year. For them to attend, presuming the same total number of CMP teams, a traditional waitlist team that would have otherwise been given the opportunity to attend the CMP will be required to stay home.

I am not asking for the Wild Card to be removed. I just want people to understand that this tough decision did not come without consequences.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdamHeard (Post 1371159)
This isn't a new thing though.

All the way back in 2008 the entire finalists alliance at SVR were given Champs spots.

Ouch...SVR double whammy.

The Championship still offered an open enrollment phase back then, so perhaps the "stakes" weren't as high.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pfreivald (Post 1371160)
While I agree with the latter paragraph, I have to take some exception to the former; policies that remove adjudication (that is, judgment) lead to ridiculous things like second graders getting suspended for chewing their Pop Tarts to look like pistols.

"Zero-tolerance" polices are zero-thought policies specifically because they strip the adjudicating body of the ability to apply judgment and reason to the situation, and that makes them bad policy.

So yes, HQ should do everything they can to minimize all situations wherein such calls have to be made in the first place, but when those transgressions occur, the use of judgment to arrive at the most desirable (or least undesirable) outcome is not a slippery slope, it's necessary for sane and reasonable policy.

My point remains that there are many, many more similar "Pop Tart gun" scenarios that have occurred this season than just this one instance, yet this was the only one HQ decided (for now) to address in this manner. Many more scenarios than the *other* notably public situation in Orlando. Ones you'll never hear about. Ones that no doubt contributed to qualifying match losses, elimination match losses, entry into the elimination rounds, lost alliance captaincy positions, and the like. It's ok for HQ to address the one that "went the most viral", as long as they admit to and do not lose sight of the greater problems at hand, those they've yet to publicly address in the same manner Frank did today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thad House (Post 1371191)
What I'm more excited about is that ever since Frank took over FRC director, things have become much more open to the community, and instead off all of us just sitting in the dark, we get answers and how they are going to fix things. I suspect that they want to say some things about how this year is going, but I think they are waiting until after competition season is over in order to acknowledge them.

The majority of people concerned/affected by the problems of the Aerial Assist season are still sitting in the dark, in possession of many questions but receiving few, if any answers. They are currently unaware whether Frank and HQ are planning to openly address their concerns. I think a public statement would be both warranted and therapeutic for all concerned.

I caution everyone to not so easily underestimate the collective emotional pressure boiling underneath the surface of this season. If HQ doesn't take suitable steps to see that it is properly relieved, and similar mistakes are made again in subsequent seasons, don't be surprised to see the endgame erupt into something that no one - teams, volunteers, and HQ - wants to see.

I think all people are asking for is a public acknowledgment from HQ along the lines of "We made mistakes in developing and deploying significant game management aspects of the Aerial Assist season, and we fully own them. The responsibility for correcting them is ours. We apologize for the added stress this season has brought to teams and volunteers, and we assure you that we will do everything in our power this offseason to improve our internal quality control measures such that the competitive experience will be better for all involved."

I honestly, truly, do not think that is too much to ask. It would go very far in alleviating the pressure I mentioned above.

jvriezen 08-04-2014 16:35

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Travis Hoffman (Post 1371280)
I think all people are asking for is a public acknowledgment from HQ along the lines of "We made mistakes in developing and deploying significant game management aspects of the Aerial Assist season, and we fully own them. The responsibility for correcting them is ours. We apologize for the added stress this season has brought to teams and volunteers, and we assure you that we will do everything in our power this offseason to improve our internal quality control measures such that the competitive experience will be better for all involved."

I honestly, truly, do not think that is too much to ask. It would go very far in alleviating the pressure I mentioned above.

I think, to some extent that was already done. From Frank's blog: "We’d love for every game to achieve Ultimate Ascent-like popularity, and we did not reach that level this year. Aerial Assist was a very different game for FRC, with our attempt to have a more sports-like game and strongly encourage teamwork on alliances. Some aspects of the game are working well and some, such as the burden placed on our volunteer referees, are not. Your feedback is critically important as we work to incorporate the lessons learned from this game to improve our future game design efforts."

Are you expecting a public statement after each week of competition for the major transgressions that occurred and/or 'went viral'? Consider a rookie team that is exposed to one event, doesn't follow CD, but then sees public apology statements through the blog (or an email blast) each week. Without a lot of context, they might think "what kind of organization have we gotten into?" If there is to be another public acknowledgement of troubles and intent to address them (and there very well might be), I'd expect it to come after the season is over, not before. It has already been acknowledged in a blog post that things are not as they had hoped and that they intend to work to incorporate lessons learned for future game design.

rsisk 08-04-2014 16:58

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
There may be another issue here that wasn't addressed by Frank's post...

How did he end up in a position to make a decision without adequate information?

Should this have been handled by a call between the head ref and Aiden (not sure of his title, but let's call him the head head ref) and not escalated to Frank?

I was trying to look at the manual for guidance and this was the best I could find.

Quote:

5.5.3 Referee Interaction
The Head Referee has the ultimate authority in the ARENA during the event, but may receive input from additional sources, e.g. Game Designers, FIRST personnel, and technical staff. The Head Referee rulings are final. The Head Referee will not review recorded replays under any circumstances.

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.

Boe 08-04-2014 17:02

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rsisk (Post 1371322)
There may be another issue here that wasn't addressed by Frank's post...

How did he end up in a position to make a decision without adequate information?

Should this have been handled by a call between the head ref and Aiden (not sure of his title, but let's call him the head head ref) and not escalated to Frank?

I was trying to look at the manual for guidance and this was the best I could find.

I wondered the same thing, as to why frank was the one making the call. I also wondered if the head ref at svr would have been able to overrule what frank if he didnt agree with frank since the ref has ultimate authority in the arena.

Cory 08-04-2014 17:07

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rsisk (Post 1371322)
There may be another issue here that wasn't addressed by Frank's post...

How did he end up in a position to make a decision without adequate information?

Should this have been handled by a call between the head ref and Aiden (not sure of his title, but let's call him the head head ref) and not escalated to Frank?

I was trying to look at the manual for guidance and this was the best I could find.

I believe it is because the FTA is the one who contacts FIRST and their interface is Frank.

Libby K 08-04-2014 17:30

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
I am so, so proud of Frank for this post.

Yes, the wrong call was made, and he apologized for it and explained how he was going to fix it. Frank's really good at this transparency thing we're all begging for.

However, it doesn't fix the issue that anyone thought it was at any point okay to penalize a team for an honest mistake, nor does it excuse the alleged statement made re: 'pulling the team out of championships'. Things need to change somewhere in the chain of command to avoid the overpowered-entitled-volunteer behavior that's become unfortunately all too common in the FIRST community.

A big step in the right direction. All in all, the right thing to do for now. Good Guy Frank strikes again! :)

DonRotolo 08-04-2014 17:30

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by PayneTrain (Post 1371079)
What am I going to do with all of these torches and pitchforks now?

Quote:

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to PayneTrain again
Drat! :ahh:


.

PayneTrain 08-04-2014 17:45

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Koko Ed (Post 1371080)
Considering how everyone has the hair trigger sensitivity of Nitro Glycerin and what's at stake this week and down in St. Louis you can bet you'll get good use out of them pretty soon.

Buy low, sell high! I like it.

Travis Hoffman 08-04-2014 17:54

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jvriezen (Post 1371307)
I think, to some extent that was already done. From Frank's blog: "We’d love for every game to achieve Ultimate Ascent-like popularity, and we did not reach that level this year. Aerial Assist was a very different game for FRC, with our attempt to have a more sports-like game and strongly encourage teamwork on alliances. Some aspects of the game are working well and some, such as the burden placed on our volunteer referees, are not. Your feedback is critically important as we work to incorporate the lessons learned from this game to improve our future game design efforts."

Are you expecting a public statement after each week of competition for the major transgressions that occurred and/or 'went viral'? Consider a rookie team that is exposed to one event, doesn't follow CD, but then sees public apology statements through the blog (or an email blast) each week. Without a lot of context, they might think "what kind of organization have we gotten into?" If there is to be another public acknowledgement of troubles and intent to address them (and there very well might be), I'd expect it to come after the season is over, not before. It has already been acknowledged in a blog post that things are not as they had hoped and that they intend to work to incorporate lessons learned for future game design.

I most certainly do not want multiple statements issued, even though it seems to be true that "transgressions" are still happening weekly, which underscores the severity of the overall problem this season.

I also agree that the statement you quoted can be considered something along the lines of what I had requested. However, I know I and others would have preferred a standalone statement of regret instead of one buried in an array of charts and stats based on a (very) limited dataset of responses. The overall blog post seemed intended to sway the hearts and minds of the reader toward a "it's not so bad" viewpoint - attempting to influence those who had yet to fill out surveys. You can certainly communicate the need for the community to submit more surveys without posting charts and stats based on what has already been submitted by the self-admitted less than desirable few. Shouldn't we let the West Coast vote before declaring who won the Presidency?

Would a more obvious admission of mea culpa have helped reduce much of the angst that popped up this week following SVR? Likely not. But for the larger population of folks who've been stung on a less overt level, I think it would have helped quite a bit.

Let's move past the PR aspect of dealing with this season and return to the bottom line. I think FIRST is finding out that a growing percentage of the community believes that major changes, not minor tweaks, are required to bring about meaningful, lasting improvement. FIRST has said they are amenable to making changes - they have told us the extent to which they do so hinges largely upon the feedback we provide them.

Whether you like the game or dislike it, whether your team has been directly impacted by blar or not, whether you are a student, mentor, or volunteer, SPEAK UP and let your voice be heard. Provide DETAILED accounts of both notable positive and negative experiences related to both the game and interactions with volunteers.

To this end....

Is there a better way for individuals to share more "real-time" feedback with FIRST? Short of these team surveys that team leads may or may not distribute to all team members (or may not even know about), is there a more direct method for people to share their thoughts with FIRST HQ - one that doesn't flood email inboxes, one that can be responded to quickly by FIRST personnel, and one that does not involve an orange, black, and white colored forums site?

Also, is there a working structure in place for VOLUNTEERS to provide their feedback to HQ - a standard system that FIRST requires all events to propagate?

Such a discussion could be explored in a new thread.

Bryan Herbst 08-04-2014 19:21

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rsisk (Post 1371322)
There may be another issue here that wasn't addressed by Frank's post...

How did he end up in a position to make a decision without adequate information?

Should this have been handled by a call between the head ref and Aiden (not sure of his title, but let's call him the head head ref) and not escalated to Frank?

I was trying to look at the manual for guidance and this was the best I could find.

The FTAs have a decision making flow chart that dictates who makes decisions and where it escalates from there. I haven't seen it myself, so I can't tell you where this falls, though I'm guessing they followed the appropriate protocol.

Additionally, although backup and timeout coupons are passed through the head ref, most decisions that impact replays, changing teams, giving teams time to work on their robots, and the general scheduling issues are a joint decision between the FTA and head ref.

To me it isn't so much an issue about interpreting and enforcing the game rules so much as a logistic and communication issue, which would fall under the FTA's purview.

nlknauss 08-04-2014 20:14

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
Awesome decision by Frank and FRC. I'm only assuming but I bet there were a ton of factors involved with making this decision and the pressure was probably immense. This reminds me of a book for educators called "Teaching with Love and Logic". The book is on classroom management and the psychology behind working with others to create a productive environment. One of the major points in the book, is that it's difficult to create rules and procedures to cover every problem that pops up. The best you can do is deal with individual problems and come up with a solution for that problem. I'm as much into the rules as the next person but this scenario calls for an individual solution.

All in all, this is a good learning opportunity (for anyone) because it demonstrates a problem solving scenario that comes with leadership responsibility. A rough call was made, it was evaluated, a solution was presented after weighing all of the information, and now the parties involved are moving forward. Examples of this outside of FIRST are few and far between. Good for Good Guy Frank!

Citrus Dad 08-04-2014 20:25

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
An excellent response and outcome. I'm glad that FIRST put the right priority on fairness. I completely understand the problem of communicating in this situation, and I'm glad that they came to this resolution.

brennonbrimhall 08-04-2014 21:17

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
+1 Frank. Thanks for making it right -- as well as for your example of Gracious Professionalism. You put the attributes that FIRST emphasizes into practice.

There's not really many people I look up to in this world, but you've become one of them. Thanks for taking the blame, and showing this generation of FIRSTers (including me) how a real leader should act.

Niezrecki 08-04-2014 21:36

Re: FRC Blog - My Bad Call
 
I absolutely adore Frank! What an excellent man admitting mistake/ misinterpretation and trying to appease everyone. He is quite an inspiration to all of us FIRST Students and an excellent example of the great dedication to fairness that FIRST tries to embody. Gracious Professionalism all around. :) Makes me happy.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 15:22.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi