![]() |
Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
Quote:
These "kids" handled themselves as they did because they are following the example of the finest mentors and leaders in FIRST. There will never be a competition where 100% of the calls are good, or every match schedule is even. Inspiring the students to accept these facts with grace and humility is as important as teaching them to build a robot. Hat's off to all of the mentors on team 148, you are inspiring leaders who will succeed no matter what path they chose in life. |
Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
Quote:
|
Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
Quote:
Also, I was there. They were using a tape measure and it had a significant curve in it while measuring. That simple math means that the length they measured was not accurate, or at least that's what simple geometry states. I mean, the curve in the tape measure was severe. Extremely severe. I am certain the way these teams were treated at Dallas is NOT what Frank and his team intended and I expect a clarification soon. I will be writing a letter to Frank explaining what I saw, in detail, from watching right by the sidelines. My entire team and I saw the same "strangeness" with no explanation at all from the referee. In all of my years of competing I can't remember a more "strange" interpretation of the rules than in Dallas this year. |
Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
Quote:
I agree there needs to be a more unambiguous way of measuring. Put that in your letter please you have a legitimate observation and expertise. IMO they should remove the "quick fix" sub-rule. It is what it is at time of competition. Up to team to ensure compliance at all times. |
Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
Quote:
|
Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
Quote:
|
Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
I wish they had the "inspection device" out there to do the measurement properly (an L shaped PVC piece exactly 78" that they swung around to make sure it was under). It is entire possible that something was tweaked and was above the 78", in which case we could probably have just bent it back or as Chad said we could have switched the pneumatic solenoid, but it was, for lack of a better word, a "strange" ordeal.
We really did have a great time at the Dallas regional meeting so many great teams and great volunteers. Finally getting to work with the Robowranglers and 3802 was one of the best experiences we've had. We need a little bit to decompress from all the excitement, rescheduling flights for the entire team due to the inclement weather and packing up a crate for shipping. Congrats to the awesome alliance of 118 624 and 2613 on a well deserved win. What an awesome finals for week 1. We're very excited for the future of this game and can't wait to see you guys again at champs. |
Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
Quote:
|
Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
These are my closing comments, replies, and opinions on this thread having posted to it many times.
I agree with some aspects of Boltman’s opinion and with Martin's too but the important point here from a RULE's perspective is NOT that the robot was too tall, or too heavy, with dimensions too wide, or anything else that makes a robot non-compliant even after passing tech inspection, it's that the RULES, all of them but especially G7 were not correctly applied in this situation, a situation where referee opinion would have the most devastating effect on the outcome of the game. As I posted earlier, the robot 'may' have appeared be too tall by just a fraction of an inch given the angle at which the referees were viewing the measurement as seen from MY point of view, but now with eyewitness report from Paul Copioli that a severe error in measurement technique was applied by the referees using a flexible measuring tape, I take back the concession that the robot may have been too tall. Two errors in measurement is two-too-many and that's a problem. Jay O'Donnell and Boltman pointed out that a measuring device like a stick (calibrated of course) could be used and I agree. A measuring tape is best used to measure dimensions closer to the ground along a FLAT PLANE and not held over your head away from eye level. They don't need to use a special, single-purpose, calibrated instrument for every aspect of the tech inspection but a stick with the measuring tape applied along the edge with a bubble level to correct the plumb of the stick would do the trick, would provide consistent measurements across all robots, and is cheap too. This approach is not unprecedented as I'll assume that they are using a scale to measure the weight of the robot and not simply picking it up and saying 'yeah - that feels about right'. And since we are rolling football into this thread, don't the refs use a calibrated chain to measure 10 yards for a first down in everything from JV football all the way to the NFL? Martin, Boltman, and others pointed out that the time it took to make a [poor] measurement and debate the issue probably took longer than it would have taken to 'quickly' correct the issue in the first place, and I agree with that completely. Here's another place where a calibrated instrument could have been used to measure a suspected violation and provide consistency and fairness for all teams and remove the ambiguous word 'quick' from the rule book. The calibrated instrument in this case is a stopwatch. In the case of a properly measured violation, a team would have exactly three minutes to enter the field, correct the issue and leave the field; after that, the violation is re-assessed and the decision is rendered. That's exactly what happened to 987 when they were warned for taking too much time for setup in a previous match, a referee or judge somewhere started a countdown - can't argue with that unless the Team was not advised that the timer was started. Robots like 2613 and others were similarly affected by not being allowed to apply the 'quick fix' which was also surprising and unfortunate. The 987 robot was in a new, never used configuration along the edge of the landfill in this final match as anyone can testify that saw every match, just as I did. Their typical autonomous configuration was within the totes and containers in the backfield where the rear extraction arm was usually in a lower position than in this match. If the robot was tech inspected in this lower position then in may have been overlooked by the inspector, and if was inspected in the raised configuration then is was improperly measured by the inspector but either case the tech inspection should have caught it. Nobrakes8 is also correct in his assessment of the ref that spotted the suspected violation. She is the ref for the Blue Alliance's rear-most scoring platform and it appears, after repeated viewing of the recorded video, that she spotted the issue independently and brought it to the attention of two other refs on that side of the field who immediately raised their hands to stop the match and pointed at the top of the robot. MrJohnson - I don't think anybody is seriously 'condemning' a ref but instead pointing out that refs are people too and people make mistakes, and when they do nothing says unbiased like having more eyes/ears on the issue, which is what we had here. That should convince anyone that there is no conspiracy or collusion in this judgment. What is in question is why the refs/judges did not follow the wording of rule as outlined in G7, a rule which I'm pretty sure ALL TEAMS were expecting to invoke if at any point there bot became non-compliant during the game. Instead, summary judgment was the rule of the day. That they were not allowed to even play was the most surprising and devastating aspect of the refs decision. Had they applied the 'quick fix', competed, and then lost the match, everybody involved would have felt better knowing that the Red Alliance was truly the better alliance of the two. For sports' athletes who train tirelessly for competition, do you think they feel satisfied when they arrive to the arena and are awarded first prize when they find their opponents immobile in a full body cast and unable to play? Do you think they consider their time well spent in training? Would you? Hat's off to the kids on both alliances for practicing Gracious Professionalism but also for the coaches and mentors from both alliances who quickly approached the judges and referees in order to debate this important decision at the critical moment, in spite of the warning that the refs ruling would be final. |
Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
Quote:
|
Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
Quote:
As a fly on the wall at this regional, there were certainly some judgement calls from field volunteers that I believe were questionable, but your analysis of the video is not correct. The female ref was passing information from the blue alliance to the head ref, nothing else. |
Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
Quote:
If the ref... has issue and brings out the tape measure... run out with your flag... say... no, no, no, look! see!. |
Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
CGuenther - OK I'll give you that. My angle was from the other side of the field and I didn't see anyone from the Blue [?] Alliance point it out to the ref although I did hear the word 'height' reverberate through the audience. Upon reviewing the recorded video many times after the match, I was paying close attention to both sides of the field to see if anyone walked up to the ref to give her that information, so from that perspective she acted independently as the refs that stopped the match appeared to be acting on her observation alone. Again, I'm not pointing fingers at any referee, just saying that I didn't see any wrong-doing in the neutral staff for initially stopping the match.
|
Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
Quote:
|
Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
I just wanted to say congratulations to Keith Buchanan for winning the regionals Woodie Flowers Award! You definitely deserved it! I also wanted to say thanks to Team 148, 987 and 3802 for showing the upmost gracious professionalism during the stressful and highstake finals.
|
| 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