Chief Delphi

Chief Delphi (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Forum (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   2 v 3 in Dallas (http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135295)

jaykris284 01-03-2015 19:19

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:

Originally Posted by martin417 (Post 1451491)
This is used far too often as an excuse as why bad calls don't matter. People: THIS IS A COMPETITION! THE TEAMS ARE HERE TO WIN, AND THEY WANT TO WIN!



The teams are held accountable to the rules, shouldn't the refs and FIRST also be held accountable?



They delayed the start of the match for over five minutes in order to rule the two bots in violation, why not give them a brief time period (as the rules allow) to rectify the situation?

You also gave a lot of what ifs, maybe they were warned before, maybe.. maybe... etc. but the rules don't say anything about a quick fix being allowed if they haven't been given a past warning, they say

This is not what happened. I would like to see FIRST either give a thoughtful, reasoned explanation, or give a public apology and some form of compensation for the three teams involved.

Note that I do not know anybody on any of the teams involved, I only know what I witnessed. If there is an explanation that fully accounts for what happened, and agrees with the rules that were published before the start of the competition, I will apologize and retract my statements.


plnyyanks 01-03-2015 19:41

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jaykris284 (Post 1451745)
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.

I've worked with Jerry fieldside before, and he's absolutely one of the best I've come to know. If I ever get FTA certified, I hope I can be half as good as he is. Definitely a well deserved shout out.

mrgoldtech 01-03-2015 20:08

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.

Paul Copioli 01-03-2015 20:25

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mrgoldtech (Post 1451767)
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.

Then you simply don't understand the rules as written this year. There is a specific rule to allow quick fixes if the refs determine an out of size condition on the field.

Siri 01-03-2015 20:43

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by mrgoldtech (Post 1451767)
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.

I don't know about your bolded statement, but "If 987 had taken the time to properly measure their robot" is a fundamentally false premise. They passed inspection (per JVN and Chad987). Twice. In fact, it's the exact opposite of hypocrisy: they worked very hard on their robot and built, according to at least two previous inspections (standard qual and elim) was ruled entirely legal. They expected everyone to be held to the same strict standard, not curved tape measures (per Paul Copioli).

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.

mrgoldtech 01-03-2015 21:54

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Siri (Post 1451797)
I don't know about your bolded statement, but "If 987 had taken the time to properly measure their robot" is a fundamentally false premise. They passed inspection (per JVN and Chad987). Twice. In fact, it's the exact opposite of hypocrisy: they worked very hard on their robot and built, according to at least two previous inspections (standard qual and elim) was ruled entirely legal. They expected everyone to be held to the same strict standard, not curved tape measures (per Paul Copioli).

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.

By prematch inspection, I mean calling out 2613 for having a robot that was too tall even though theirs was too tall. Additionally, after 10 minutes of reviewing the issue of 987's robot height, the final score stayed the same. If 987 was actually under 78", then why wasn't a rematch called?

bstew 01-03-2015 22:06

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.

Siri 01-03-2015 22:33

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:

Originally Posted by mrgoldtech (Post 1451829)
By prematch inspection, I mean calling out 2613 for having a robot that was too tall even though theirs wasn't too tall. Additionally, after 10 minutes of reviewing the issue of 987's robot height, the final score stayed the same. If 987 was actually under 78", then why wasn't a rematch called?

Please understand, I'm not claiming that they were or weren't in fact over 78 inches. (I don't know that anyone is or can, which is part of the problem.) The issue isn't what the height actually was, it's what the rules actually say. Regardless of how tall they were at the time, the reinspection either changed their status under G7, or resulted in a premature G22 disable. The "violation" for G7 is to allow a "quick remedy"; the strategic violation of G22 is an in-match disable. This is the first I'm hearing about an after-match review, but if there was anything to review, it's the execution of G7/G22, not just the height of the robot. 987's post-match height could've been measured to the micron. It wouldn't matter. They may of may not have actually erred in their robot height; we don't know (personally). We do know that the handling of G7/22 is in question.

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.

bstew 01-03-2015 23:19

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.

JB987 02-03-2015 00:33

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bstew (Post 1451871)
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.

FYI, I believe we did use the can grabber on the main field during practice rounds.We were indeed disabled BEFORE the match. In archived video of Saturday matches linked in relevant thread you can see one of the refs next to the head ref discussing something with him just before the start of the match and also see the head ref turn to the score/control table while the other ref made a "knife across the neck sign shortly before autonomous started (with us already disabled and with no notification to the drive team).

PayneTrain 02-03-2015 00:42

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by JB987 (Post 1451916)
FYI, I believe we did use the can grabber on the main field during practice rounds.We were indeed disabled BEFORE the match. In archived video of Saturday matches linked in relevant thread you can see one of the refs next to the head ref discussing something with him just before the start of the match and also see the head ref turn to the score/control table while the other ref made a "knife across the neck sign shortly before autonomous started (with us already disabled and with no notification to the drive team).

As an on/off member of a drive team, I find this behavior really concerning. Not communicating with teams is very bad.

IronicDeadBird 02-03-2015 00:54

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.

Basel A 02-03-2015 03:11

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.

MooreteP 02-03-2015 08:05

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by martin417 (Post 1451491)
This is used far too often as an excuse as why bad calls don't matter. People: THIS IS A COMPETITION! THE TEAMS ARE HERE TO WIN, AND THEY WANT TO WIN!

Uh,,, no.
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?

notmattlythgoe 02-03-2015 08:54

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by MooreteP (Post 1451993)
Uh,,, no.
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?

The term FEMALE was used as a descriptor, not as a negative statement. Put the pitchfork down.


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