2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Oh my...

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

You said it. They just made 3802 sit on the sidelines, and got 162 points. People are really starting to RUSH, including the elite. Lots of stacks toppling over.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

We were watching this when we all slowly noticed it. It seems kind of ungp in a way if 148 just told them not to put their bot on the field.

Edit: Apparently the third robot was making modifications. I totally don't think that this is unGP the. My wording also probably confused some people.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

It's too crowded in elims with 3 robots on the field and stacks that high. If anything, I hope this makes the GDC realize some things about this game...

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

I agree. I don't think it's GP. Even if they just sat there, or undid the upside down totes, that would be better than leaving them on the sideline.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

This doesn't have to happen at later regionals. Simple rule update: You must field all 3 robots during eliminations.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

It is un-GP, but what could they really do? I suppose they could stay in the landfill and make stacks, but not much room for it. Not 148's fault, mainly the GDC's fault.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Please don't point fingers at or accuse teams, directly or indirectly, with incomplete information. 3802 (*and/or 2613) could be broken, or elected to not play themselves.

The GDC also can't really enforce active participation of three robots, only incentivize it.

EDIT: asterisk

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Their third robot 3802 was working on a step can grabber and was making some modifications... I wouldn't jump to conclusions. It only makes you look bad.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Pointing out that 118's alliance also elected to play with only two robots in their first match, if memory serves correctly.

The alliance of 148, 987, and 3802 do intend to compete with all three robots on the field as soon as 3802 is up and running.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

According to the livestream, 118's alliance's third robot was supposed to be on the field for their second quarterfinal match, but didn't make it on time.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Looks like 3802 is coming in on this match.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

good to see full alliance

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

High Rollers 987 actually just sat this match out....Comm issues. Interesting. They're still on top, but what if that happens in finals?

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

I am not sure that match counts either....

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Should this thread be 1 vs 3?

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

1v3 987 disabled as not set in time, 148 not on field in time.... semi 4

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Wow, and you said that even before SF 3 happened!

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

1v3 in 2 straight semis

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Does anyone know what specifically happened to make it a 1v3? It would stink if an alliance as good as #1 lost for this.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

118 and 2613 didn't even make it to the field for semi 3. 624 still managed 95 points by themselves though.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

I seriously doubt that 148 (or any high-caliber team, for that matter) would ever tell another team to not put their robot in the field.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

As ruled:

148 didnt make the field in time.
987 took more than 60 seconds to set up.
Timeout wasn't called soon enough.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

edit- works on my laptop

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Are the field crew being more strict with match times and setup times than they were earlier in the event.

It's very unusual to have this many teams missing their matches in eliminations.

If 987 had a problem with setting up in one minute, wouldn't it have been discovered before semi-finals.

Can anyone who's there chime in? Can't tell much from the stream.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

They had the robot sidelined because they were manufacturing a 2 can grabber. Nothing ungp.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

The rule says "significant or repeated delays". Is 987 really taking that long to set up? I wouldn't imagine so...

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

I wonder if it has anything to do with the very extended nature of this event. Since Dallas is going so late, the refs may be trying to ensure the event concludes as quickly as possible...

Still would like to see things enforced uniformly, just so that no one has any surprises in playoffs.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Consistent enforcement would be great. At PNW Auburn Teams were asked to not revert robots to transport config in playoffs to speed up match turnaround. The teams were not taking over 60 seconds, but the field crew wanted to move faster. They started requesting this on Friday night when we were 2 hours behind

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

The refs and field crew at PNW Oregon City pretty much said 'if it's safe, don't worry about transport config' the entire time, including quals and playoffs. We were about 2 hours behind on Friday even with that, though...

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

It looks like 118 and 624 have been playing with only two robots during finals. Whats up with that. 2613 is now on the field for the last match.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Seems like things were much stricter at Dallas than they were at Granite State. Teams were taking their time with setting up, and everyone was given more than 60 seconds it seemed.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Looks like all six bots are on the field for the final match. :)

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

And yet its still 2v2

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Really sad to see 987 getting absolutely wrecked by these elims decisions. Really a shame to not see them get to play for some reason or another.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

It ended up being 1v2 given that 987 was disabled for breaking the height restriction.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Wasnt the 3rd bot on that alliance working?

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Blue still had two alliance members active. 2v2

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

G7 When placed on the FIELD for a MATCH, each ROBOT must be:
A. in compliance with all ROBOT rules, i.e. it has passed Inspection. For exceptions regarding Practice MATCHES, see Section 5.2 – Practice MATCHES.
B. fully supported by the floor, SCORING PLATFORM, and/or SCORING PLATFORM ramps on their ALLIANCE’S side of the
FIELD, and
C. completely outside of their AUTO ZONE and LANDFILL ZONE.
VIOLATION: If fix is a quick remedy, the MATCH won’t start until all requirements are met. If it is not a quick remedy the offending
ROBOT will be DISABLED and at the discretion of the Head REFEREE must be re-Inspected.

Nowhere in the pre-match rules does it state anything about being above the height limit, that is assumed to be part of G7-A, and is the responsibility of the inspectors. If 987 passed inspection with that add on, then there is no reason for them to be disabled, and if they didn't pass inspection there is no reason they would have gone through with that auto...what just happened?

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Did they measure that using 1678's cut up tape measures.

It's the most absurd thing to try and watch any matches as an alumni and try to explain robotics to friends/family to show them why I enjoy the sport if the refs decide matches before they start.

I'm sure there's an explaination but as a viewer I'm pretty disappointed.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Doesnt the robot rules state a max height?

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

For those who watched Dallas, did 2613 ever get the RC bins from the step in auto? If not, that is a brilliant move by that alliance to get 987 to forgo those 28 auto points (and eventually be deemed illegal).

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

From what I saw they never did.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

987 and 148 on the Red Alliance were robbed. How is it possible the 987 was now 'too tall' and disabled in the final game-deciding match?

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

What even are rules if it's decided to not follow them?

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

It's plausible that they passed inspection but something got bent or moved from it's normal configuration, resulting in being out of spec.

It's not worth speculating until someone from 987 can explain what happened.

Very unfortunate that so many eliminations matches featured no shows or disabled robots due to teams supposedly taking too long to setup, or not being on the field in time.

I've seen lots of robots show up slightly late to the field and the field staff generally does everything they can to let them play. We have heard a little bit from people at the event and it sounds like the referees are doing everything they can to keep teams from playing, which is a shame for all involved.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

The transport configuration is checked during inspection, and that has the same max height. 987 wouldn't overlook the limit if they added the grabbers on on the field.

EDIT: I agree with Cory. No way to know until someone in the know says something. But I'm still disappointed that we have such a controversial decision in week one...

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

No, but isnt their a max height limit for a match as well?

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

78" is max height everywhere

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

2613 was disabled for breaking the plane of the landfill zone. So both of the teams going for a can grab were disabled.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Week 1 Checklist

☑Incompetent Teams
☑Referees that don't know the rules
☑Seemingly intentionally vague rules and relative Q&A predictably turning out poorly for everyone
☑Events almost half a day behind schedule
☑Consistent rulings within events are wishful thinking, consistent rulings between events a forlorn hope
☑Obvious consequences related to schedule issue predictably turning out poorly
☑Controversial and likely embarrassing and borderline irresponsible rulings in eliminations

2015 bonuses:
☑Judges not aware of lack of feedback or mentor allowance changes regarding chairman's award
☑Key event volunteers unable to explain new scoring and slim format to audience

Thanks for showing up to Week 1, brothers and sisters. See you at Week 1 next year (when hell freezes over/stop build day ends, whichever comes first)

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

No

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

I can understand how this happens legally. If 987 made modifications, didn't get reinspected, and tried to play that way, they would be rightfully disabled under the rules.

I can't however for the life of me imagine that 987 would have simply not gotten inspected before their last match.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

They removed attachment (was useless) and still got called. They did not reinspect.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

I think it's kind of ridiculous that breaking the plane of the landfill zone is an automatic disable without giving the team a chance to fix it. How hard is it to let the team on the field for 10 seconds to move their robot back a couple of inches?

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

G7 When placed on the FIELD for a MATCH, each ROBOT must be:

C. completely outside of their AUTO ZONE and LANDFILL ZONE

VIOLATION: If fix is a quick remedy, the MATCH won’t start until all requirements are met...

It shouldn't be very hard at all, given that that's what the rules say to do...

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Personally I think its ridiculous teams can pre-hook RC's so see this as good rule not to break the plane.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Our robot hasn't been modified at all since we were inspected on thursday and measured in the state that got us disabled in final match 3.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

I can somewhat understand disabling in a qualification match to keep things going, but in a playoff match, especially the final match, the referees should be trying to get as many robots able to play as possible.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

VIOLATION: If fix is a quick remedy, the MATCH won’t start until all requirements are met. If it is not a quick remedy the offending
ROBOT will be DISABLED and at the discretion of the Head REFEREE must be re-Inspected.

"Quick" is relative, so it's possible the refs told them their arms were too tall, and then 987 couldn't remove them fast enough.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

So the rules should be disregarded because its the finals?

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Sure. Find out that the robot is too tall early on Wednesday inspections and keep that fact in your back-pocket until you need to use it.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

The too-high rollers!
In all seriousness, I find it ridiculous that the refs ruled them too tall. Why were they too tall during the last match, but not too tall for any other matches, when nothing changed? Does consistency not matter at all?

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

They ruled that our our arms were illegal in their extended state because the outside corner was above 78" (even though at inspection they were deemed legal) getting under what they claimed to be legal height would have been as simple as pressing a button on the solenoid.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

My argument is quite the opposite. As others have quoted, a quick fix remedy should be allowed, but I can somewhat understand the referees disabling a robot during qualifications, to keep on pace.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Hold on there. Let's try to keep any accusations to ourselves unless we have actual evidence. I'm just as disappointed with the ruling as you are, but we need to keep our heads level.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

So then a "quick fix" should only be allowed in the finals?

Rules should be the same the entire regional. In this instance, I guess the refs ruled the fix to not be "quick".

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

It's certainly possible they were too tall in only the final match, due to any number of factors, while having passed inspection at the correct height.

They may just have needed to tweak something to bring the robot back within height...but they obviously weren't given that chance.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Actually when I said that, I was quoting someone who was referencing 2613 being disabled for being over the landfill. That is unarguably a quick fix as intended by the rules. I stand by what I said about 987, and if they passed inspection in that configuration then it should have been legal. Idk why an inspector would spontaneously inspect a previously approved configuration...

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

This was just ridiculous. It's totally unfair to disable a robot that slightly sticks into the landfill, on th grounds that moving it is not a "quick fix".
Plus, if a robot gets inspected, and a member from 987 posted that nothing changed, there shhould be an outstanding reason to disable one of the most powerful teams at a reiognal in only the very last match of the finals.

A similar situation happened to us in 2014. An alumni of the team actually inspected our robot and okayed it before elims. We go onto the field and lo and behold- the same guy says that we have to remove part of our robot in order to play.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Refs can call for another inspection if they deem it necessary. Its not rare, but its not common either.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Well Chad987 from that team said that the bot was too tall, and too tall is too tall. If the inspection team missed it then that's unfortunate. Too bad it had to wait to be found in the last match. Sorry 987.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Wait, he said it passed inspection without modifications after that. The rules only say that it has to pass inspection, not follow all the terms surrounding inspection.
The rule is clearly woreded that way to prevent this exact situation from occurring.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

This was clearly not done. I don't see how it's possible to disable a robot on the field when there was no re-inspection how do they know i did not see them out on the field with a tape measure?

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

I think this instance points toward changing the rules to always give the offending team the chance to remedy the situation. Say you get 30 seconds, and if you're not done by then you will be disabled.
Bottom line, it shouldn't be the referees' responsibility to decide whether a team is able to perform an undefined task on its own robot within an unspecified amount of time. That's not on the referees, it's a matter of making the rules less ambiguous.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Actually thats exactly what they did. I went back to see if anything was said or done and they actually did measure it with a tape measure on the field.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Surely you don't believe this is true? You can pass inspection, but actually be non-compliant with the rules because the inspector either missed something, or the robot was damaged/tweaked during gameplay, causing a situation where it is out of compliance. You still have to fix it...you don't just get a free pass because you passed inspection.

The issue here isn't that 987 was discovered to be non-compliant after passing inspection and changing nothing. It is that they were not given a reasonable amount of time (as the rules call for) to remedy the situation and were instead immediately disabled.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Agreed 100%
They wouldn't even tell us whether or not we were disabled. The only way we knew was when the robot did not move in auto.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Of course you should be following the rules at all times (I'm not disputing that) but if an inspector passes the robot and nobody knows about any rules being broken, it just seems very unfair to rule it illegal in the deciding match of the competition.
I was thinking of rule T8:
"A Team is only permitted to participate in a Qualification or Playoff MATCH and receive Match Points if their ROBOT has passed
Inspection.
VIOLATION: If prior to the start of the MATCH, the ROBOT is not eligible to participate in the MATCH. If after the start of the
MATCH, the entire ALLIANCE receives a RED CARD for that MATCH."
It mentions only passing inspection.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Just because you pass inspection doesnt give you a clean pass for the remainder of the regional. What he's saying is, through gameplay, your robot may expand; however that may come to happen. And if it is not noticed by the team, but is noticed by the refs, they can chose to inspect it on the spot.

If it is deemed illegal then, it is illegal; while still having passed inspection.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

The sudden disable isn't an isolated incident in Dallas. This happened numerous times at North Star Regional last year and significantly affected the rankings and eliminations. It's incredibly frustrating and disheartening to see a team's elimination and qualification matches ruined based on a draconian interpretation of a highly ambiguous rule, particularly without any sort of notification or warning. I can understand wanting to speed matches along, but when the fix is as simple as releasing a solenoid or removing a game-piece, it's getting a bit too ridiculous.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

I don't think whether or not the rules being enforced at all times is what's really being debated, I think the focus is more on whether or not it was fair to just disable them and start the match instead of giving them some time to resolve the issue.

In the past, we've always been told when a referee had an issue with our robot and given the opportunity to quickly fix it. It seems like that isn't the case this year (or at least in Dallas). It would be nice to get some sort of clarification for that from HQ.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

There is no clarification needed. See G7. It explicitly states that teams are to be given the opportunity to quickly remedy the situation to become compliant, with disabling being a last resort.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

I'm speechless. This is completely inappropriate. No matter what you think of the ruling (which I completely disagree with, for the record), not taking the time to inform the team of their disablement is neither gracious, nor professional.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

This brings back memories from last year... I had a referee from North Star come to me to complain about how teams were being treated - not being told they would be disabled before a match started because they were out of the starting configuration.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

After reading that these things are not unusual and have happened before, I am curious to know if the refs that are in charge of making these calls are ever held liable to their decisions. There is a lot at stake in these competitions and for the sake of transparency, I believe there really should be a thorough investigation into this matter. Just my two cents.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Should there be an investigation? Yes. Should the refs be investigated? Yes. Were the things that happened both un-GP to 987 and rather unfair in general? Yes. But remember, the refs are volunteers.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

If the goal of FIRST is to inspire, then the ref who pulled this one did the exact opposite. Things like this make teams regret ever participating. 987 surely worked extremely hard putting this bot together, just like all other teams, and their robot came out great. To see their hard work ruined by an egregious, hasty move made from a judge is awful.

I'm sad.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

The volunteer thing is always a cop out. They're volunteers...that don't have to be invited back next year.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

People need to realize that things like this happen everywhere throughout FIRST. And it's really, really bad. Although this is a competition, people need to realize that the most important thing is the students learning and having a good time. Mentor built robots are awful. Not awful technically always, but awful as they ruin students ability to learn. Many teams have mentors who disrespect students, or don't let any students do the work. The thing is, there's also teams who don't, and we need to be able to distinguish from the two.
When it comes down to the competition, what's more important? Shutting down a robot without notifying the team, and possibly discouraging the students from STEM careers?
Or giving them a bit to sort it out, and allowing them to run the robot that they worked hard on for 6 weeks.

Valid point. In all honesty, I'm pretty sure that if a volunteer is being un-GP, someone would gladly take their spot, say as ref.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

To be honest I think the response has been pretty mild. No calls for a witchhunt or anything. I'm sure the teams affected by this would still like there to be some sort of investigation or at the very least acknowledgement that there has in fact been a problem.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

I agree with this. To be fair, it will take some time for FIRST to find out/sort this out. I would think 3802 deserves a spot at champs. 148 and 987 are already going from what I've heard.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

It's extremely disappointing to see this no notification starting config disablement resurfacing year after year. It was perhaps my biggest problem with our first event last year, where we were disabled for having two pieces that contact the ball slightly outside our frame perimeter in the middle of quals.

This had the rather unfortunate result of losing us the match. Since then, I make it a point to always ASK refs if our robot is in valid starting configuration if there's anything that is quite close to the limit. That way we at least have some recourse if a disablement occurs for starting config.

Don't even get me started on the "question box"...

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Was 2613 notified they were going to be disabled and were they given the opportunity to fix it? Had a robot been disabled earlier for non-compliance or were they given the opportunity to fix it? It would be nice to know for future events whether this was a one time call in the finals or whether the refs had made calls like this before. I can't speak for the refs but if they have made a call like this before then maybe they felt they had set a precedent and had to stick to the way they had called this in the past to stay consistent.

I don't have an opinion on the calls themselves but before we sharpen our pitchforks and go after the referees we should remember the call was consistent on both sides of the field.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Thanks Cory - and I agree completely. Pre-Match rule G7 should have been 'properly' applied here. From the official 2015 FIRST Game Manual:

G7 Violation "If fix is a quick remedy, the MATCH won't start until all requirements are met. If it is not a quick remedy the OFFENDING ROBOT will be disabled and at the discretion of the Head REFEREE must be re-inspected".

All reports from the team suggest that the extended component (maybe a fraction of an inch over) could be mechanically retracted by the push of a button. Had the judges/referees properly applied Rule G7, they should have approached the team in order to gauge how quick the fix would be and then rule appropriately. 987 could have lowered the extension in a second and then a fair and spirited match could resume. If the other alliance failed the height test during the match, and 'if' they were allowed to fix it, I don't think either side would have been upset, after all the rule would have been properly applied.

On top of that, to summarily disable the robot without notice was unwarranted and sealed the fate for the Blue Alliance in spite of Team 148’s valiant efforts.

This same sort of thing happened to 987 last year in San Diego with the overboard 50 point foul rule in the last game-deciding match just like here in Dallas. I think dialog in forums like this might have helped sway the rule makers to back away from such things like the 50 point foul which always changed the outcome. In this case the rules were appropriate, but the ones applying the rule were at fault.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

CORRECTION TO A PREVIOUS STATEMENT

The statement "(maybe a fraction of an inch over)" is my opinion after reviewing the video about 50 times. I'll assume for the moment that with three judges starring at a tape measure at an angle (since none of them had eyeballs at 6'6" from the ground) for 10 seconds were trying to resolve a fraction of an inch in the height of the robot. If the robot was 6" over the limit we would all just throw up our hands and call it over the limit in about a second.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Dallas didn't really end the way I think anybody wanted it to.

From our perspective in the stands sitting directly behind the FTA and head ref it looked like they were ready to start the match with all 6 robots until the blue alliance had the female ref on their side of the field get the head ref to stop the countdown. We saw one of the coaches jumping up and down; and while that was happening a 118 driver ran up to another ref. So, we kind of thought it sucked for what happened but it looked like the blue alliance were the ones who had the match get stopped.

I will say this was just a bizarre regional with the weather, delayed start, etc.. We didn't get our robot packed and leave until 10:45 and during the playoff matches it looked like there were a lot of people short on patience as the night wore on.

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Is there any video of the matches?

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

Its near the end of the live stream of the event

Re: 2 v 3 in Dallas
 

It's very disappointing to hear how this event ended.

I wish certain field volunteers at FIRST events would keep their heads a bit better when events are running late. They feel pressure to get the event done so the teams and volunteers can go home after a grueling event, but saving a couple of minutes isn't worth it when it creates a highly negative experience for a group of students.

Elimination round matches where the robots aren't all working are a big letdown. Especially in the finals matches. It is worth a few minutes of conversation between referees / FTA's / lead robot inspector / drive team to sort some of this stuff out if it has the potential to avoid a screwed up final match that leaves nobody feeling satisfied in the end.