Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

They won Chairman's. They're in.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

(Emphasis mine)

What we are discuusing here are the rules as written, not opinion.

Rule G7:

They delayed the start of the match for over five minute in order to determine that the robots were in violation, either or both situations could be rectified in less than 30 seconds. According to the rules as written, both teams should have been allowed to rectify the situation. The fact that they were not even told that they were disabled only makes it worse.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

All three teams on that alliance?

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

As for "all teams" on their alliance lets face it it was TWO robots that did all the work for that alliance actually three if you count the tether bots Robo Wranglers (2 bots tethered) and High Rollers. That third/fourth robot... did nothing legit in terms of overall scoring to make it to worlds other than being selected third robot on that alliance to have a good chance... insert any other robot same outcome. They were lucky to be selected and get that far. I think they scored 8 when High Rollers was disabled in prior match in 135 seconds of trying.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

148 was in before the season began.
3802 did not qualify.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

There are lots of strategies. One very viable strategy for winning is to be an excellent third pick. Both 148 and 967 thought that they picked the right third partner, that partner deserves the respect that position earns, as well as the accolades. If you were third pick at worlds, and your alliance won Einstein, wouldn't you feel like you had accomplished something?

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

No... I would feel lucky if our bot not contribute in any meaningful way (when asked) lets get serious...again they had a chance to help and WIN in that final game and pick up the slack they failed to change the outcome and to help 148 as a "valued alliance member". The other alliance had same issues with disabled bots and won..its fair. Perhaps had that 2nd place alliance picked a stronger third robot (with 1st pick mind you) they would have won. The third robot on the winning alliance did pull their weight and deserves Worlds more than the third on the second place alliance. The second in the winning alliance in playoffs one put up 95 solo...nearly beating three robots at 106.

What do you want FIRST students to learn? Life handed to you OR deal with adversity and make your own luck in life.
This was a good life lesson. Be prepared. That alliance should have never invited scrutiny over 78" height.

Best alliance of three teams won in Dallas. That's what happened.

As for best bot...148!!!
High Rollers and Robonauts were similar in Teleop. High Rollers AMAZING auto!
Did you see that Superbowl where 19-0 Patriots lost are we complaining over that?

High Rollers and Robo-Wranglers will use this as motivation.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Such an uproar... Yes, it was a huge call at a large event. Yes, referee calls had a huge influence on the outcome. However, there are some things to consider....

The bigger picture:
* FIRST is not all about the robot or all about winning championships. It is about Gracious Professionalism and Inspiration. A part of Gracious Professionalism to me is not jumping to conclusions and making accusations without having all the information.
* Referees are volunteers who spend countless hours helping FIRST to become a fantastic competition. I am certain that none of them are doing so simply for the opportunity to undermine a bunch of kids' robots.
* We do have rules to follow for these games. If one team wins a championship by being permitted to skirt a handful of rules, does that not cheapen the event for the teams they beat?
* At this point we have heard from one person who was directly involved in the incident. Almost every time there is an incident of any sort, all witnesses to an event only have "part" of a story. It is very likely that the poster from 987 does not have the entire story - and may not even realize it. Also, the mere fact that the poster is from 987 means that the poster has a natural bias. His/her reporting and understanding of the events could very well be skewed unintentionally. Before jumping to conclusions, therefore, should we not at least hear from a referee who was a part of this call?

This particular scenario:
Folks have found plenty of reasons to "blame the ref" so far. Here are some possible situations that may have been at play that would justify the referee's call. Was I there? No. I have no idea if these were a part of the decision or not - neither does nearly everybody else on this thread.
* There had been repeated warnings in the event about delaying the start of the match. 987 had already been disabled in the semis for this. It could have been that the time (however short) to fix the height issue as "yet another delay" and they were not being given any more room to adjust.
* It could be that 987 had been playing too tall all competition and that the referees never noticed it. However, somebody on the opposing alliance did and brought it to the ref's attention in the finals.
* It was reported that "pushing a button on the solenoid" would have remedied the problem. I am reading this as "pressing a button to release air pressure in a pneumatic system." This certainly would have been quick and legal. However, if I am not interpreting this correctly, could "pressing the button" be something that required the robot to be enabled? This would have been illegal.
* For all we know, 987 had already taken too long to set up for that match and "one more delay" was just too much.

Again, we overall really don't know all the details and never will.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

On behalf of all the students and mentors of 148:
Dallas is our "home" regional, and we're proud to have competed here for all 7 years of its existence. We love having so many of our alumni, peers, sponsors, parents, and supporters able to attend. To see the overwhelming support of the Greenville community is an amazing thing.

Like all FRC events, this weekend had many, many, many incredible moments.

Being able to play with our long-time friends from 987 for the first time was a privilege. As anyone who has interacted with them can attest, they are a class act worthy of the highest praise and accolades.

We've similarly known 3802 for a long time, and enjoyed getting to work with them. They made huge contributions to our alliance being able to put up the world-high score, and helped (almost literally) through a weird semi-final series.

This event was filled with friends, and even some teams we consider family. The camaraderie around the field and in the pits throughout the weekend was unlike any event we've attended.

Special thank-you to our fellow #TeamIFI teams 1296 and 3310. If you think our robot is crazy, you should see what these two teams have going on. :)

We feel no disappointment in losing to two #TeamTexas powerhouses, two of the best teams in the world, and some of our closest friends: 118 & 624.

Many of you noticed 3802 sitting out our first quarterfinal match. This was because all three of our alliance teams were working to upgrade their machine (with the oversight of the inspectors & within the rules of the game) to pull cans off the center step. We (as an alliance) discussed them "sitting" to give us more time for the modification, and 3802 eagerly agreed. Everyone on 148 was thrilled they were around for us to pick, and could not have asked for a better 3rd partner.

Like during most competitions, there were a some frustrating moments during the playoffs. Many of you have commented on a few of those.

Regarding SF2:
-148 was informed we were not allowed onto the field because we were late to the match. The ruling on the field was that we were called several times and did not respond in time.

-987 was disabled. The ruling on the field was that they took too long during setup, which is something they had been warned about multiple times.

Regarding F3:
-987 was disabled, their robot was measured by the inspectors and determined to be over the height restriction after setup. This was not an "added" mechanism. That mechanism was always on their robot (all weekend), but was not used in "can grabber" configuration until F3.

While we are disappointed in the results and disappointed in the way some of this was handled, it in no way detracted from our team's experience at the regional. We had a great time at the event, are incredibly proud of our performance and are thankful to all the event volunteers for donating their time. We appreciate the referees always taking the time to explain their rulings to our student representatives even when we did not agree with their interpretations of the rules.

We are all learning the new playoff format, and as such need to be especially careful about setup time, and getting to the field on-time. We are somewhat disappointed by the guidance, information, and warnings our team received from event officials during "the strangeness" of these playoffs. However, we understand that if the field staff feels that our alliance was adequately "warned", there isn't anything else we should expect, and appreciate their openness in discussing their feelings on the matter.

The "snow delay" schedule caused a lot of problems this weekend. The event management, teams, and volunteers all did their part to overcome these problems and hold a GREAT event.

Our team is eager to continue our competition season in a few at the Las Vegas Regional, and then showcase Batman & Robin at the Championship Event in St. Louis. We have 3.5 weeks of iteration in front of us, and a lot of motivation. :)

On a personal note...
I am extremely proud of our "kids" on how they handled themselves this weekend, even in (abnormally) stressful circumstances. The students of Greenville High School continue to astound me, even all these years later. I'm proud to call myself a Robowrangler.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

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.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Martin,

All I am really saying is this:
I am in Washington State. According to you bio, you are in Georgia. Both of those locations are far enough from Dallas that we are not likely first-hand witnesses. (Okay, you could have traveled, but from the sound of your comment, you did not.)

We do not know that it was a bad call. We don't have the information. Yes, I have lots of "ifs." That's because you and I do not know what happened and, from my perspective, there were all sorts of things that could have justified the referee's decision.

As for GP: Yes it is a competition. Yes, we want to win. However, the desire to win does not excuse us from Gracious Professionalism. In fact, I would suggest that one of the most important lessons of FIRST is to learn to maintain GP in the heat of competition - or in its aftermath. Is it not professional to listen to both sides of a story before jumping to conclusions? Do we really want to condemn a referee without at least hearing his justification for a call?

Read the well-worded response from the 148 mentor between our two posts. In his mind, the rules were followed correctly, they only question the "guidance" and "warnings" given- something that is certainly not defined within the rules.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

You can't make that argument unless we know the full situation, which I'm not entirely sure that we do. You could very well be correct, but given the way the finals turned out, and the statement from 987 that they were a solenoid flip away from compliance, and that the rules allow explicitly for a quick fix of the problem if it is a quick fix, shouldn't there have been given time to 987 (and for that matter 118's third pick) to fix their non-compliance issues? The debate isn't really over who is the best, it is about who was or was not given a fair chance to prove that they were the best.

As a humble New Yorker, I'm glad to see people still sour that they lost to us in two superbowls :D

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Again my retort will always be NEVER go over 78" height or 120lbs weight it's in the rules. Teams had a lot of other leeway (unprecedented). I know the situation based on multiple second hand accounts that High Rollers was over 78" at the time by more than one judge, had the judges not caught it they would have exceeded 78" which is a not allowed. "Them's the rules."

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Would you have the same stance as you do now if your robot was in violation of the rules just as they were?

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Its nearly impossible for our robot to go beyond 78" as its 77.75 " unless damaged and bent upwards (unlikely) and if we modified it or tried to modify it and changed our strategy to now pull RC's off wall the rules of 78" high and 120lbs do not change. That's what specs in rules are for..to design within those parameters when in game on field to balance out the competition.

Not sure whats so hard for people to understand that BOTH 78" and 120lbs are absolute limits? They were by all accounts at the time in violation...that's the thing about regular math there is only 1 right answer. We see what happens when tolerances/limits are not followed in science....sometimes tragedy.

If the uproar was they were under 78" on the field I would join the crowd. Actually good this happened in Week 1 for every team to be made aware...and double check those two absolutes.

The answer would I be upset sure, who wouldn't?... would I understand YES totally, just as the 2nd place in Dallas alliance members already stated. Their responses should be your answer.