Re: 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo
 

I have to say that many of the adult mentors I was sitting with with in the back of the Galileo stands thought that this looked intentional during the competition and were surprised when there was no penalty. 469 made several questionable (I mean interpretation of not motivation for) moves in the elimination rounds. [Text Deleted by Ddzconfusd]

That being said, did 469 have good bot? Yes.
Did they know how to play the game to win? Yes.
They beat my team fairly in the Galileo finals and deserved to go on to Einstien, and for that I congratulate them. That is not the point. The point is that rules should be called as written and they were not on the Galileo field. I just want to see rules consistently called the way they are written.

[Text Deleted by Ddzconfusd]

Re: 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo
 

First off,
I do NOT appreciate having PRIVATE comments I have made, posted publicly.

Secondly,
I'm not ignoring the problem.
I watched the matches you specified, and I feel the same way as Chris Hibner. If we saw it that way, there is a dang good chance that is how the refs saw it. So that is how they called it.

Remember, ref calls and interpretation are FINAL.
You have now attacked 469. You went as far as saying they didn't deserve to be in the finals. Now you're whining about some negative rep?

I've gotta say, I saw a lot of difficult calls being made, and overall I was VERY happy with the officiating this weekend. I thought the refs were absolutely AWESOME.

I was also very impressed with 469, and the quality of their drivers and strategy. I think they earned every W they got.

I watched the video of the matches you speak of.

Based on these things I've gotta say... you're WAY off base in your post. You should consider immediately appologizing to team 469, and the Galileo Referee crew.


John

Re: 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo
 

Great, the annual "we got beat, so I'm going to complain about bad reffing on cd" post has cropped up.

I would like you to show me where exactly in the FIRST rules manual it says the playing defense is illegal. When 469 put their arm over/into your ball catcher, do you really think that their intention was to get entangled in your net? If you've ever been a driver, you'd realize that not only is it tough to see on the other side of the field, coordination between arm and chassis driver is extremely difficult on the field, and 469's chassis driver probably just jumped the gun and tried to get going before the arm got all the way up and out of the way. Oh, and by the way. Since 469 got entangled in YOUR robot, YOUR robot presented the entanglement hazard, and would have been the one disqualified. 469 employed the same strategy against our alliance (177, 27, 365) in the finals: they picked up a 2x ball and held it over 177's catcher when the balls dropped. The only difference here is that in your match, they dropped the ball.

For the past three years, FIRST has said that vigorous interaction between robots is to be expected, but it seems that some people still haven't listened. Yes the games have become higher contact than they have in the past, but whether that is a good thing or not,that is the way that it is.

You also keep talking about some "problem" that people are ignoring. What problem do you see? That teams are playing the game on the field to win, and are competing to the best of their ability. If you expect FIRST to go back to a 2001 style no-contact game, I think you'll be waiting a very long time. Each team can play the game however they want to, as there are infinate strategies to employ against any robot. Just dont complain when a team comes up with a strategy to beat you that you didnt expect. Get over it, and get ready for next year.

Re: 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo
 

The biggest problem I see is that each year the refs are told to "really enforce" certain rules. Normally these rules deal with human interaction. Last year the refs were really harping on the human player not going into certain places, not dropping the bins on their side, etc. I thought it was a bit too much focus on something that didn't influence the game (or safety) so much, except for HPs jumping over the rail.

This year there were 2 major rules I noticed the refs looking at:

1. Robots breaking plane - I see the intent, but the way it was enforced was just plain silly. Not to mention the fact that a goal could be placed nearly 1 foot into the goal opening with no penalty. The reasons the goals weren't penalized have been explained, but it is still silly.

2. "Foot Fouls" - This isn't bowling people. Why were the refs so intent on calling penalties if you stepped over the back line?

These two rules took away four refs from looking at other, more important, parts of play.

Pushing, bumping, and ramming will happen. The repeated ramming that is going un-penalized is getting a bit absurd. Teams are playing within the rules actually given to them (since the written words are vague, at best. Read "INTENTIONAL" - what a joke). I am a big fan for defense, but not battlebots. I guarantee that if a team gets penalized (I mean points actually deducted) for ramming they will not do it again. How many times did it take you losing by 5 points to tell your driver to stay at least 6 inches away from the corral?

Some final thoughts:

1. I do not think that every time a team gets tipped it should be penalized.

2. I do not think that every time a team gets ran into and they break, it shoulld be penalized.

3. I DO think the refs need to look at different parts of play than they have the last few years.

4. I DO think the rules should be written and enforced consistently.

-Paul

Re: 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo
 

As part of the 469 alliance I would like to offer my comments. I will be honest and say that I did not take the time to read this whole thread, but it seems that the main argument is that 469 INTENTIONALLY got entangled. Everone should know that this was not at all intentional. We did a strategy session before the match and decided that the only way to counter 93 was to block them from getting the ball drop. To do this we wanted 469 to crab a multiplier ball and hold it over 93. First 469 tried to grap a multiplier for this perpose but it fell out. With only seconds to spare they made a judgement call to try and hold their arm over 93 and prevent as many balls as possible from falling in. THIS was the purpose, and in my mind it is legitimate. They did not intend to get entangled. I am not saying that the entanglement rule should not have applied, because I still havent made my mind up on that. But if the issue was intent, there was no intent to entangle. I would also like to say that it is completely the refs call. It is really not our place to argue over their descisions. They have a tough job, and they try to hold us to the rules as closely as possible.

Re: 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo
 

Good post, you got me thinking. Sure, certain rules do change. But there are some that don't entanglement, tipping, etc. They are considered "standard rules" and are included almost every year.

Referees are human and don't want to make the diffcult call of determing whether or not a robot should be disabled. Black and white calls, like when the battery comes loose are easy. However, fuzzy situations like entanglement and tipping are difficult.

There are clearly some who think 469 has violated the rules and others who think 469 is just playing good defense.

I propose that FIRST puts together a video to be shown to all that shows examples of violations of the "standard rules." Actual competition footage could be used. Teams would get a better idea of what they shouldn't do, and referees would have actual examples to use to help determine what intent looks like.

Re: 496 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo
 

I have been watching this thread, and I think it is heading the wrong direction. If you want to debate how to improve the rules in the future, make them more clear, design the game to encourage less aggressive gameplay, fine. It seems to me though that this thread is more than just slightly biased. We acknowledged the way the game was going to be played, and tried to do our best within the limitations of the rules. If the goal of this thread (as stated in a few posts) is to give suggestions for better enforcement of rules, then lets discuss that. If not, then it should be more clear, and I will post my opinions on the specific incidents that were brought up.

Re: 496 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo
 

[quote=Chris Hibner]469's drivers are 48 feet away, looking through two stationary goals and other robots driving around the field. I think it is forgivable that their first move is to start driving away (especially if they couldn't see that their claw is tangled on 93).

I'm going to have to side with Chris on this one. Until you have been behind the glass in a competition, you just don't know. I see the same thing, they scouted the match well & when their strategy of using the ball to block the dump failed they... paused & did the next best thing. Used their arm instead. I'm sure they would have much rather NOT been entangled. After the block my GUESS is they would have started collecting balls to bring to their human player to try and beat you in a shootout.

If you saw the semifinal match we had with them for the championship you would have seen them put the 2x over 67's mobile goal just before the balls dumped. The Ref's didn't call goaltending, 469 was trying to get the balls into thier hopper, not block our goal. Sure it could have been called but, these poeple are VOLUNTEERS. They are giving up their time & quite often the opportunity to see their own teams to help out. Did you ever say thank you for the 3 days of work they put in for YOU.

This competition is about learning, the game is just a fun way to do it. I know it is tough to lose. Especially when you think you have been wronged by a missed call or ungracious play. The hard truth is, that's life. What doesn't kill you can make you stronger, if you let it.

Lastly for the strength of your robot, the robostness of it. I couldn't count the number of times I watched a team drive up onto us to try & keep us from hanging. I couldn't count the number of times a robot rammed, yes rammed us. We had cables snap, sides smashed in, parts bent, but we kept hanging because we have played against 496 before, we knew how tough other teams can be. My kids built it strong enough to take it & keep hanging. around.

Re: 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo
 

Wow...posting people's private replies publically...that's pretty nice.

I was on the field and I heard 469 talking strategy... This is what I heard...

"Ok...in order for us to win this thing, here's what we need to do. When 93 opens up their net, instead of just dropping a 2x ball in there which would be too easy and nice, lets ram chomp-chomp in there. That way, we can get all tangled up and tip us both over trying to get away. Then, make sure we pick both of us back up to make it look like we are nice, and then release them so we can go and do what we really built our robot to do...go and be the best ball hearding, most offensive robot out there and cap at the end.

But, that might not work all the time, so what we will do next is position ourselves under our goal so they come over and try to push us out of the way. Then, we will tip us both over again, BUT WE HAVE TO BREAK THE MOBLE GOAL. This is very important and is a must. But, only pull out one pipe to make it seem not too intentional. Then, pick us back up and continue with our offensive strategy."

Come on. Sorry, but quit whining. Several times this year we have been broken by other teams (the Martians 494 did a nice job on us at GLR). But we understand it's a game. A rough game. And we fix what is broken, hopefully better so it doesn't happen again, and remember it for next year so we design something more robust. No HARD feelings...in fact...we like it. It forces us to examine our designs and go back to even more basics (like we are next year) to makes things stronger and easier to repair.

Maybe we should play next year like lego league...where the field is divided into four quadrants and we all have our little sections to drive around in so nobody can hurt anybody else. Yea...that will be exciting. I'm sorry, but to the general public which I think FIRST is trying to appeal to, to get more interest from, we need these kinds of matches. When things like this happen, the stands are roaring and everyone is running from the food stands to see what is going on. This is the kind of excitement we need.

And another thing...comparing some of the FIRST robots to the flipping robots you see on battlebots is silly. Sure, if someone uses a cylinder on a flipper and continuously flip robots over, they should be DQ'd. But, I didn't see anybody do that at all. Making a low profile robot or some kind of wedge shape is a very fundamental design to stop yourself from getting pushed around and bullied and that is the name of the game to fulfill your strategy...

Congrats 469. You did nothing wrong. Looking forward to being more competitive next year so we can be a challenge to you...

The only thing I can agree on is how the scoring was done. The balls are removed from the field and everything is reset before the scores are posting so if there is a disagreement, there really is nothing to "check". But, I don't know how to fix that...

Re: 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo
 

Oh wow...I never realized that our defensive strategy would get such a reaction... When I started following the thread this morning, it had three posts, and I figured it would blow over...

Now, I think, I should probably say something from our point of view.

You are correct in assuming that we were trying to mimic the idea of the hot bot capping 67 in Ypsilanti. I thought that play was brilliant, and as head of scouting, I was telling our coach all weekend that the way to beat 93 was to do that. My main fear in playing against them was that they would hvae an alliance that triggered in autonomous mode and we wouldn't be able to prevent them from catching all the balls. (Obviously, the point of this wasn't to interfere with their robot...it's just that when you have rollers and want to floor load, it's not good when someone catches half the balls immediately. Great robot design, though :) )

If you had met our arm driver, you would understand that it was a mistake to get the arm inside their robot. Our team was instantly worried about the repercussions too. I wasn't there during the rounds (as head of scouting, I had to watch Newton), but trust me, Weike would NEVER intentionally shove the arm into the robot. Our coach and I had discussed beforehand if we didn't have the doubler we could lay our arm OVER their robot the prevent the balls from going in. Definitely not inside of the robot.

As for tipping... going into the season we knew our robot was fairly unstable with the arm up... the COG was just too high. Personally, I worried throughout Ypsilanti about the problem, but the robot didn't tip. At Chicago, when it did, we were holding a doubler in a goal, and managed to get back up. At nationals when tipping of our robot became a common occurance, we were almost always able to right ourselves. As for 93 tipping... everyone knows when you build a robot that can tip, that is a risk you are taking. You could fall off of the steps, or happen to get into a pushing war with the wrong robot. In my opinion, they could have taken more precautions against tipping. But at least they managed to get back up, right? :) And as for flipping onto the goal...I guess I don't have much else to say other than "oops".

As for the referees on Galileo, I respect their decisions. (Although, of course, since it meant we won...I would). However, in Chicago when we were on the opposite side of a referee decision, we also accepted that after reviewing to determine if they were correct. Refereeing is a difficult positition to be in, and to say the least, I watched almost all of the qualifying rounds, and the rulings were consistent.

All in all, I'm sorry to anyone we offended with our defensive meneauvers. We were simply trying to win to the best of our ability with the robot we have. Some mistakes were unintentionally made. So I guess it's nice to see the different perspectives on what happened...hopefully this won't cause any hard feelings to last.

Ellen

Re: 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo
 

It's also important to note that the arm entering the basket could have been accidental. Caused either by poor control of the arm or a nervous driver.

Re: 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo
 

Yes...that is exactly what I meant when I said Weike would never intentionally put the arm in someone's robot. She's a freshmen, fairly knew to the whole thing, and one of the sweetest people you'd ever meet. She's not out to kill anyone's robot, I promise!

Re: 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo
 

I think some people are a bit confused. Ryan (the person who started this thread) is NOT from team 93. In fact, no one from 93 has even posted yet. IIt would be interesting to hear their point of view since they have competed with and against 469 for many years.

And Ryan, since you are making private remarks public, I will save you the trouble: You MIGHT have a legitimate beef, HOWEVER your bitterness is getting in the way. If you want people to address the real problem then strip away all the unnecessary bitterness and contempt and try again.

-Paul

Re: 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo
 

The specs are the laws of physics dealing with conservation of energy.

There is going to be a 130 pound robot coming at you at 12 feet per second, going after the same ball / goal / inner tube / whatever that you are. That energy is going to be transferred to your robot. It needs to either be strong enough to take the impact or flexible enough to absorb it.

There is going to be a 30 pound arm swinging at the maximum energy of the motors / pistons available to grab the same ball / bar / goal/ whatever that you are, and parts of your robot is going to frequently, very frequently be in the path of action. It needs to either be strong enough to take the impact or flexible enough to absorb it.

We had PVC wings to push the balls - should our opponents be penalized if they tear them off during a match? No - we understand that they will generally take the load, we keep them stowed whenever possible, and we keep lots of spares to replace them.

In 2002 national finals when we drove full bore into the goal and into Beatty, we had no intention of damaging them; if you saw their robot it seemed pretty likely they would have won that confrontation. Our only choice was to knock them off course so they wouldn't be in position to grab the goals. Worked pretty well - does anyone think we should have been DQ'd?

Our team used to have a rule for our drivers for aggressive play: if you break their robot you get to go their pits and help them fix it. Still a good rule.

Just remember, it's not about winning. Winning is fun, we try to win, but that's just icing if we do.

Re: 469 Entanglement / Bad Refereeing on Galileo
 

The robot was at the opposite side of the field, there was lots of movement going on, the fabric obstructed the view somewhat as well... I was down on the field w/ the support team, and it was very hard to see... I even had a better view on the side of the field than our driver did! Besides, as the arm driver for a competition as well, I can say that the arm is very quick, and the slight change in position between "over" and "in" are very hard to make with the controls.