![]() |
Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
Let's face it here, being overly critical of FIRST and refs is not going to solve anything. Unless you have been a referee for FIRST it is very hard to understand the immense pressure they are under. Rather focus on the positives.
1. People from FIRST read Chief Delphi, they will make minor adjustments for the upcoming regionals. 2. There are some awesome FIRST volunteers out there. For example at Palmetto, one of the FTA's, Jerry, understood that teams had spent 6 weeks building a robot and was not going to deny them of the opportunity to let them play because of one stupid error. One of the teams on our alliance actually had a laptop suddenly restart and Jerry noticed and quickly called to get a classmate for the team to use just in case. Would it have been as helpful as the team's own laptop? No, but it would ensure they at least got the chance to compete. Hats off to Jerry. Rather than criticizing referees and the volunteers for FIRST and demanding an apology, lets make suggestions to make it better. Additionally all teams know what they are getting into when they sign up for a 1st week regional, they chose to take that risk, not FIRST. Quote:
|
Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
Quote:
|
Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
Whoah, whoah, let's not get ahead of ourselves here. 987 was the one who issued the prematch inspection against 2613 regarding robot height, yet their own robot is too tall to be competing anyways. Anyone see the hypocrisy here? If 987 had taken the time to properly measure their robot and not jump to immediate conclusions regarding robot height than there should not have been any problems. And either way, rules are rules, I can't see how the referees would allow an illegal robot to perform, especially in a final. As always, congratulations to 118 and 624, and 148 and 987.
|
Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
Quote:
|
Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
Quote:
As far as the "rules are rules", yes, they are. And the rule reads, verbatim: "If fix is a quick remedy, the MATCH won’t start until all requirements are met." 987 was ruled out of compliance with a reinspection. This put them newly in violation of G7 on the field, after they'd left for the Alliance Station. The 'penalty', as stated in the rules, is to allow them a "quick remedy". This portion of the rules, assuming the quick remedy was known to all, does not appear to have be followed. But it's not 987 that violated it. |
Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
Quote:
|
Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
While G7 has been referenced multiple times in regard to the referees ruling in 987's situation, G7 is not applicable to what happened. G7, section A, specifically stipulates that the robot must be in compliance with all Robot Rules.The only Robot Rule regarding Robot height is R3 which specifies that the robot must be no more than 78" tall when in TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION and the duration of the match (eg. the robot can be any height pre-match and post-match when not being transported). When the robot was reinspected, it was not in TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION nor during the duration of the match. 987 was never in violation of G7 nor were they disabled because of G7 because when the robot was left on the field, it wasn't in violation of any robot rules.
I think that the real reason 987 was disabled was G22, which states that the robot may not exceed 6'6" during the duration of the match. While this would warrant a foul in most cases, if the head referee believes that its strategic, the robot will be disabled. While this rule seems quite subjective, it is quite plausible that the head referee that it was their strategy to briefly exceed this height limit. While I personally am not happy with the aftermath of this ruling, I believe that the referees followed the rules throughout. If the rules aren't changed or clarified, this situation could be repeated at other regionals. If I am misunderstanding the rules or missing something, please feel free to correct me. Regardless of what occurred, both finalist alliances performed very strongly and I would like to congratulate them for that. |
Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
bstew, Re: G22. Very interesting point, but any G22 violation would've had to occur after a violation of G22, and thus during the match (even if at the initial start). At least according to the reports in this thread, 987 was deliberately disabled before the match and not even informed of the fact. This is strict G7 ("Pre-Match Rules") territory. It is a brilliant (and overly picky, IMO, but that's not at all on you) rule reading, though, if the penalty implementation had been executed with similar strictness. But now either way G7 or G22 was being used improperly, and it's improper rule execution on at least one party, if not two. (The second being 987, if they were in fact over height.) Separately, the G22 argument would hinge on whether 987's transport configuration was at the same height as its pre-match configuration at the given time. It appears that it was, which becomes a clear G7 issue again.
Quote:
As for calling opposing robots into question for possible violations, I'd argue it's a personal practice issue. But there's absolutely nothing illegal about it, and if I'd worked hard for 6 weeks to get your twice inspection-passed 77.9"* robot to function as well as 987, I can see the argument for holding others to the same standard. They had every reason to be confident they were legal: they were legal [at least in terms of the Game Manual, until they were reinspected for the third time]. You and I might disagree with the practice, but it's anything but hypocritical. *this is made up; I don't know their actual intended height. |
Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
As to 987's height being different than that of their TRANSPORT CONFIGURATION, it has been implied that they started in a different "can-grabbing" configuration that had never been used during the competition. While I cannot verify that this is true, it has also been implied that their robot was inspected and transported with this mechanism lowered.
Whether 987 were disabled before the match or near instantly at the start of the match will probably have to be left to speculation, but I am still of the opinion that G7 was never violated. If indeed they were disabled before the match, I will have to agree that the rules were not followed perfectly, but the result would have been the same as if they were disabled within the first second of the match. While we will probably never know if 987 was indeed over the height restrictions, I find no reason for G7 to be called. If they were, according to my "picky" reading of the rules, they should have been disabled as soon as the match started as they violated G22. If they were not over 6'6" (which I think is quite possible), the match should have proceeded normally. My point is that according to the current set of rules, there is no room for the referees to have let them remedy the situation. Even though I wish 987 would have had the chance to at least verify that they were over the height limit or have been told they were going to be disabled, the head referee's decision is final and the head referee decided that they were indeed over the height limit. I would like to see G7, Section A be expanded to "in compliance with all ROBOT and GAME rules, i.e. it has passed Inspection. For exceptions regarding Practice MATCHES, see Section 5.2 – Practice MATCHES." This would allow robots over the height limit to be slightly adjusted in situations like this. |
Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
Quote:
|
Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
Quote:
|
Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
This seems to happen every year when it comes to reffing. Most likely due to a common side effect of being human is making mistakes. It is indeed sad, but when it comes down to tough times, someone has to make tough calls. I never envy the person that has to make that call though, but I will always respect the fact that they chose to shoulder the burden.
|
Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
With referees seemingly taking center stage at multiple events every year (was hoping this year would be an exception..), I have to wonder if this isn't what's going on.
|
Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
Quote:
Forest vs. trees. Ends and means. Process vs. Result, Project Management. The teams are here to dance and celebrate the beauty, elegance, and creativity of STEAM education. This thread could have been closed after JVN's GP comments. Is anyone else here bothered by the reference to a FEMALE ref? |
Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 19:22. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi