|
[FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
http://www.usfirst.org/roboticsprogr...ht-Thing-to-Do
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
Can someone please link to or give a recap of what happened at the San Diego Regional finals, for context? I thought the new team update's clarifications were in response to something, and I guess an incident at San Diego was the cause for the rule clarification.
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
I think it's time to have a discussion about paying head referees and other key event personnel, at least at the regional and CMP levels.
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
Quote:
I have a lot of thoughts on the issue and a lot of issues in FRC but this may not be the thread or the right time in the FRC season to have a good discussion about it. I would hope that all key event personnel, already paid or serial volunteers hold themselves and each other accountable and are trained well, but multiple issues both publicly made known and behind the scenes would suggest that is not the case. Also, FWIW, one of the best referees in professional sports,Ed Hoculi, has been a practicing attorney and an NFL Official for a quarter of a century. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
Basically, in the finals, there was a tug-of-war over the cans during autonomous. At the end of the autonomous, one alliance continued to attempt to get the can by reaching for the can over the step, but making contact with the portion of the can over the back of the step (and inside the opposing alliance zone). This was judged at the time to be within the rules as the can was in contact with the step, but this clarification now makes it clear that if the team attempts to contact the object beyond the range of the step, that would be a penalty.
That aside, the head ref for San Diego is someone I have known for years, and is an extremely dedicated volunteer for FIRST. He has always acted in the best interest of the teams, and in this instance, made a mistake due to vagueness in the official rule - I don't believe that paying him or training him more would have made a difference in this outcome. As an aside, he's also an attorney. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
Video of the San Diego Regional:
http://livestream.com/accounts/12224997/events/3935043 To see the finals video, scroll to the bottom for the "San Diego Playoffs and Awards" video. The two finals happen at approx 2:55 and 3:10. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
Based on the other key volunteers here in MN... I don't think paying us would make any difference (not that I'd turn it down - one event is about 40 hours of effort for me!). Most of the key volunteers here do two regionals, states, and 1-2 off season events as it is - all extremely dedicated volunteers.
Mistakes happen. With a rulebook and game that goes through drastic changes every year, you're going to get some mistakes. With 400+ Q&A responses, you're going to miss something. That's the advantage sports like football have - the rulebook seldom changes, and when it does it's a relatively small change. So someone who has been reffing for years has a ton of experience with that game - here, many of our refs are seeing the game play out for the very first time while trying to ref it. IMO, if we want to decrease mistakes, then we just need to get everyone more experience before the actual event. Something like formalizing the week-0 event schedule and getting key volunteers to those week-0 events to start calling stuff and getting experience. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
Quote:
Just for reference: When I referee a kids' soccer game at the lowest competitive level, I get about $25-$30 on average for a 1-1.5 hour game. Those are all local, too - big tournaments (that I don't qualify for) pay for transportation. I love volunteering for FIRST, but going way out of my way for it, spending vacation time and money? Not really. Especially as more places add districts, it's going to get more and more difficult to find enough qualified volunteers who are willing to take the time to do these things for free. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
NFL, NBA and NHL refs get paid in the 6 figures, they make mistakes.
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
Quote:
http://www.thebluealliance.com/match/2015casj_f1m1 -Mike |
Re: [FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
Quote:
VIOLATION: FOUL. If egregious or strategic, RED CARD. 971's hook going over probably falls under the exception for momentary contact. Also the rule probably doesn't even apply to this situation because 971 initially contacts the RC in a legal zone and then maintains contact throughout the tug of war. 399's situation is that they made repeated attempts (and eventually succeeded) to retrieve a container that fell over partially to the other side. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
Quote:
This was not the same situation that was addressed by the rule update. In San Diego, the blue alliance pulled the cans over to their landfill side (on top of the totes). Red decided to reach over to pull them back, which, was what the updated G18 rule is addressing. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
Here's video of both finals matches so everyone can follow along at home:
Finals 1 Finals 2 As George said during both finals matches there was a tug of war between 4486 and 399. During Finals 1 they got locked up in a tug of war. This was strategic on our part, with the hope that even if 4486 didn't get possession of 1-2 of the cans, they would at least tie up 399 for a period of time, with 399's alliance losing one of their key robots while we lose our lowest scoring robot. During Finals 1 there was a can resting with the top half fully contained inside our landfill and the bottom half still over the step. After a battle for the can, 399 reached over the step and grabbed the can, through the hole at the top, and pulled it off the step. This can was later scored. After Finals 1, there was no red card issued to the red alliance. We sent our driver to the question box to ask why there was no red card called. The head referee said "the can wasn't fully on our side of the step and it wouldn't have affected the outcome of the match". At this point one of our mentors, Rene Haro began going through the rule book while myself and Kiet Chau worked with our pit crew to get our second can grabber back on the robot (it broke in SF6, so in F1 we only had 1 can grabber). The rule as written in the manual was very ambiguous for this type of a situation. For example, prior to yesterday the diagram used to describe G18 did not have situation F and G. By some, this could certainly be interpreted as the object had to be completely on one side of the step for G18 to apply. Between matches Rene Haro, a former mentor for and alumnus of 399 went to speak to 399's drive coach Dave Vorceck. Rene explained that he thought what they were doing was illegal and that he should go ask the head ref for clarification. Dave went and spoke to the head ref, who gave the same explanation as he gave to our driver. During Finals 2 the same situation happened. 4486 and 399 got locked up in a tug of war, a can came to rest with the top half on our side of the step and the bottom half on the step itself. 399, now playing off the head ref's interpretation of the rule, grabbed the can from the top and pulled it over to their side and proceeded to score it. Again, no red card was called. Our driver again, went to the question box and asked for clarification and was given the same response he was after Finals 2. At this point Rene began pulling up the Q&A and found the Q&A ruling posted by FRC364 back on January 21st which covered the situation we were seeing. However, by this point the step had already been pulled up and the totes cleared from the field. Rene took the Q&A ruling to the Regional Director who in turn showed it to the head ref. It was at this point that the head ref admitted he was wrong and that in both situations 399 should have received a red card. This was obviously very disappointing to hear. As Frank mentioned in his post, the head ref apologized immediately after closing ceremonies. In fact, he was waiting for us in our pit right after closing ceremonies. Admitting your wrong in any situation is tough and something that most people struggle with, so I give him credit for this. Does it hurt? Yes. Does it feel good? No. However, there is no one to blame in this situation. The head ref was making an interpretation off of a rule that was vague and not maintained over the last couple months. We've played with and against 399 many times over the years and I firmly believe that they were just playing inside the head ref's interpretation of the rule. Something most of us would have probably done. When I wrote Frank about the situation a couple of days ago, I made it clear that we weren't trying to change the results of the event (not that that would ever happen), but rather trying to prevent this from deciding a district championship, a division or the world championship. It's unfortunately that we were on the wrong end of this, but at least it did lead to yesterday's update and hopefully this doesn't happen later on. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
I know Frank had to ask himself a similar question on Friday while he was at IN state champs. One of the Qual matches had a volunteer interference incident and luckily he happened to be fieldside, so Logan (our wonderful head ref this weekend) called him aside... his advice was to ask the teams in the match if they wanted a replay, which they all did not (one had what was at the time a 3rd highest qual score, and the other had a good score too)... I love how Frank is so satisfyingly transparent with things, this blog no exception.
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
Wondering why the GDC ruled as they did. Wouldn't it be a much more exciting game if the RC battle continued until the can was *entirely* on one side of the step? They had the choice to answer the question consistent with the ref's original ruling, and it would add a bit more alliance interaction (even more in higher level play) in a game that has nearly none.
I'd suggest they consider an update prior to CMP to allow a fight to continue until the entire game piece is beyond the step volume-- in other words, modify the rules for CMP to match the ref's interpretation of the ambiguity. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
I watched the Finals 1 video and just don't see a red card violation there. What am I missing?
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
Quote:
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
Quote:
In my opinion, this needs to be changed ASAP. That is not a red card. No way. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
I just want to say how happy I am that this was handle professionally by everyone. The teams involved are friends with each other as they are with the volunteers.
I think we knew this was a tough call to make because can wars have been rare. I think the changes to the manual will help clear up much of the subtlety of the rules. I had to check to rules myself to keep up with what was going on. I am truly thankful for the wildcard system, we got every team to qualify in the finals and that lowered tension significantly. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
I have good connections with teams on both sides, and after watching the match I don't think it was that big of a deal. The rule was poorly worded and made it difficult for the refs.
Honestly after watching the match 399 executed the maneuver safely. With how important those RCs are I think the ruling should be changed so that if any part of the RC is in contained above the step (defined as a volume, and may not necessarily touch the step) than any bot on either alliance can attempt to grab it. I think this is quickly becoming my favorite part of the game to watch is these battles. "Let them fight..." |
Re: [FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
It looked to me like 4486 should have gotten a red card in the autonomous period of that first match -- and yes, 971 in F1 at SVR the same thing. Both based on Q&A #29 and #226:
Q. If the actions of one alliance cause the other to violate G18, which alliance will be penalized? For example, if one robot from each alliance has a grasp on a container on the step and the blue alliance robot is pulled over the step by the red alliance robot while pulling on the container. A. We can't answer your question as there are many different scenarios that could be in play. If the violation is momentary (i.e. the ROBOT is only momentarily in contact with that RECYCLING CONTAINER that is now on the opposite side of the STEP, but lets go quickly and retreats), then there's no violation and neither ALLIANCE is penalized. If, however, the contact is extended, the ALLIANCE with the ROBOT violating G18 will be penalized. Q.In reference to Q29 and Q221 for two robots grabbing the recycling bin from the STEP: What happens if neither robot can be controlled by their drivers, in a situation like the Autonomous period? Would it be the same scenario as Q29, where the robot that is violating G18 would be assigned a foul? A.Yes, unless explicitly stated (e.g. a Rule is posted in Section 3.2.4 AUTO Rules), violations apply whether the MATCH is in AUTO or TELEOP. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
Quote:
And even in teleop, a grabber can easily become entangled when another team pulls a can. It's a bit late to require teams to redesign to fit this added requirement. (Remember these are HS students...) |
Re: [FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
Oh no here we go again.
The rules need to be clarified further and clear. Although this situation is different from the Hawaii Finals matches, the same rules were being read by both alliances as far as what was considered legal/not-legal. As exciting as it was for both 359-610 in the finals, I can see it potentially getting ugly at Championships, if the rule(s) arent black and white. They are subjective at best, IMO on how a red card is issued. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
What if we just made the 4 middle cans free game no matter where they are and just add a penalty for every incident a team tries to grab a can that's tipped onto the other side. The penalty would discourage trying to steal a can that's fallen over to the other side but also wouldn't auto red card the team for trying. Idk I feel like a red card attached to any can war scenario is an overreaction considering how critical they are to success. It's minibots all over again.
|
Re: [FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
Quote:
In the Hawaii Finals, the head ref issued a penalty for each game piece and/or robot 610 touched, and for each instance, if they occurred. During semifinals match #6, they were issued 24 points in penalties as a result. The issue here is how a team gets a red card. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
Quote:
Given that 399 reached over the step, made contact with the can beyond the step, and pulled the can back to their side, on more than one occasion, I would definitely call that Strategic. Then the question becomes, was it a violation? As written (but not as clarified), it's an open question, hence the Q&A. The container was over the step (partially), but contact was initiated beyond the step. YMTC. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
How does a head ref determine a move that is "strategic?"
I had argued that if its done in autonomous, then its strategic because it was programmed to purposely do something. Our head ref determined that no matter how it was done either in auton or teleop period, the 1st time was incidental. The next time it happened, it was "strategic." Two weeks prior in Australia, the head ref (who does SC events) said he would disable the robot should it reach over and touch our robot. This made me even more confused. A red card in eliminations means the entire alliance gets a zero, and not disabling that offending robot.:confused: Whatever the head refs told us at various events, we showed the rules, listened to their own interpretations, and followed for the sake of getting on with the matches. |
Re: [FRC Blog] The Right Thing to Do
Quote:
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:44. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © Chief Delphi