Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

I only attended one regional and the nationals, but at both I experienced the same problem; Teams standing up during their matches.

It really doesn't seem like that big of deal, but when those teams are sitting in the closest (or near closest) seats to the field, it's rather vexing when you're trying to scout or just sit back, relax, and watch the matches.

When asked to sit down, they ignored the request. Maybe they didn't hear us? Doubtful. At least one or two members would turn around and see us motioning the request, but denied it. Not just students, either, but the adults as well.

Perhaps this issue could be addressed amongst the teams. If you insist on standing up during the match, then maybe you could sit nearer to the back? Or just stand up while they're announcing your team/alliance? It'd be much appreciated.

Thank you.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

From reading all these posts I feel that there was a lack of GP this year. I have personally felt this. There could be many reasons for this, maybe FIRST is getting too big or maybe some people don't understand what it is. I am proposing that everybody get reacquainted with gracious professionalism. It would help things greatly.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

Might i say something here?

Everyone take a step back, There is alot of PERSONAL discussion going on here, Lets direct the negative at FIRST and not each other :D

I'm kidding, really, First is doing a great job!

Here is my view of all this negative:

Negative vs. Positive is a bad comparison, Think of this: You have a good day, not exceptional, but good overall. Now say some random guy walks up and kicks you in the shin. What are you more likely to tell people about? The good overall day, or the guy kicking you in the shin?

Now lets say you have a bad day, not much goes right, but there is nothing exceptionally bad. A random guy walks up and hands you a $100 bill and walks away, what are you going to tell people about then?

Look at what we are discussing here, The major reoccurring topic is the ref inconsistencies. Alot of other things brought up are mainly small things in the overall scale of FIRST, this shows me that in general 2005 was a good year for FIRST.

So again, take a step back, and really take a good look at what your about to post, Keep specific teams or people OUT of your post to avoid discussions like the whole Technokats fiasco.

Then again, what do i know, I'm only a rookie :D

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

With regard to cheering, requiring teammates to stand and cheer, and being bothered by teams in front of you who are cheering, I would like to start a new thread. This seems to be a sticky issue with a few different sides and opinions. I can see what Ally (and others are saying), and I would like to take the time to address this logically by starting another thread.

This other thread is called Cheering, standing ovations, and required team actions.

Go there to debate that issue as you wish. Continue to whine about FIRST in this thread. (sorry... couldn't resist... :) )

Andy B.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

While the entire FIRST crew did an awesome job at the Championship Competition, many people have mentioned that consistency in calling penalties was a big problem. I have to agree on that one. You should really check out this match (#74 in Galileo) for one of the strangest calls I have ever seen.

http://soap.circuitrunners.com/2005/...eo/gal_074.wmv

Keep an eye on team 126 (the closest robot on the blue alliance.......the one capping multiple tetras at once). They stay on their side of the field for just about the whole match. With somthing like 11 or 12 seconds left in the match, a robot on the far red side of the field can be seen being tipped over. With time running out, 126 attempts to run the field and cap in a red home row goal, passing the downed robot with about 2 seconds left in the match. While there was about 6 seconds in between the robot tipping, and 126 being on even the same SIDE of the field as them, they are somehow hit with a ten point penalty and disqualified in the match for being responsible for the tipping.
What do you guys think? I understand how calls should not be arguable. But, in a case like this, should calls be able to be changed or reviewed? This year, a simple mistake like this in one match costs any team a LOT! Thanks for your input!

Congrats to all teams on another successful FIRST season! :)

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

Well from what I saw on the video someone definately got tipped and it even looked like it was tipped becuase of a high push. I couldn't make out team #'s and such but that can be grounds for a dq


On another note: we all know that there were some bad calls made and this has been said in this thread many times (as well in maybe 10 other threads if not more) If you're going to post a bad call or say that the ref's were inconsistent and such please reconsider because this topic has been beaten to death then dragged outside revived and beaten again.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

[quote=abeD]Well from what I saw on the video someone definately got tipped and it even looked like it was tipped becuase of a high push. I couldn't make out team #'s and such but that can be grounds for a dq


Yes, a robot was tipped over. But, the dq was charged to the wrong team.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

Maybe next year FIRST can do away with the refs altogether. It could be done with pressure pads, contact switches, and tip sensors. The onboard computers could calculate how hard and where they’d been hit and signal the master computer to disable the right bot.

Heck, while we’re at it, let’s do away with the drivers, HPs, and coaches. Run the full two minutes in autonomous mode; put bar codes on the game pieces and scanners on the goals.

That way there’d be no need for moan and groan posts. Not one person cheated. No one to disparage.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

jack jones that is a goood way of ending their quabble..

.. . see.. if we didnl;t allow for these flexibilities.. then the game would be no fun at all (jack jones method).. so .. we just need to deal with it..

but personally .. i think the refs should watch a video of the match!. . FIRST is all about technology, but .. why is their refs using flags and not videos ? .. we know in NHL when a goal is disputed.. they look at the net cam . !..

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

Because the NHL doesn't have to get through 400+ matches in 2 days @ 6 minuets each. Also if the refs were to review video, then theres a delay in matches or a much lower number of matches and another point for everyone to complain about. Guys I'm not trying to be mean but the refs are only human, they make mistakes. Why doesn't everyone take a step back from their computer, close Chiefdelphi.com and go outside, i hear the weather is nice.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

I know that's hyperbole, but I also think there's a bit of a good idea in there.

Suppose next year's game were designed such that the only penalties/disablements/DQs given out were for ramming, tipping, unsafe operation, and the obligatory humans touching the robot. Penalties don't always be the answer--there is always creating the game's scoring options such that a strategy based on interference (such as blocking both opposing ball chutes in FIRST Frenzy, a ten-point penalty) aren't necessarily illegal, but either fall under the heading of "not GP" or "just plain stupid" instead.

I know what you're thinking now: "But Billfred, what about the human players?! We've got to protect them!" Once again, a game design to that effect can solve that. Using the example of balls, suppose the ball chutes were more along the lines of 2000 (a picture of which can be seen here), modified such that humans can't reach out onto the field. An example to that effect is attached to this post. edit: now it actually is attached. (If you're still worried, put a requirement that any ball-delivering devices can't be designed to interface with the chute. Then they have to build it that way, lest they don't compete.)

Put simply, the whole reason I see that we have penalties is to make a certain event (such as hitting your opponent while in the loading zone) undesirable. There is, however, more than one way to skin a cat; making certain events impossible or stupid to do through other aspects of game design does the same thing.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

So what you are saying is that if your team wins an award or somethign you want everyone to shut up and just sit there having no emotions what so ever for you guys? why? FIRST is about being happy and being gracious and all about good things and everything. it just crosses my mind on how people can just say that its "obnoxious" for teams to cheer for other teams? this is the time where i put on my "hm" face.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

I would have to say, the biggest problem for our team watching our matched would be other teams saving seats

we would come into the stands to cheer as a team (all 21 members) during practice matches and day 1 matches and these spaces would be 'marked off' with jackets and banners. we sat anyway because 6 rows worth of seats would be blocked off for all hours of the day with no one actually in them and we'd just want to watch one match at the alotted time. We incountered several robot mommies and daddies who would tell us to move. After our match we'd get up and resume our work.

I mean i greatly appreciate the caring of these parent volunteers, but seats should be in rotation for all the teams to use.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

It may not have been team 126 but it was still a team on the blue alliance that tipped that robot, unless my eyes were playing tricks on me. So they should have got the DQ for the alliance but not because of team 126.

Re: Lessons learned 2005: The negative
 

Look closely at the bottom where the two bots come into contact. The Blue Alliance bot tipped the bot by turning left and touched it at the BASE. This sure doesn't look like a High CG tip. I'd call it legal.

Anyway...I can say that our team also had a match with a ref error.
It happened in the Human Player loading zone. We were clearly on the Pad and the other side backed right into us as they moved away from our goal. It looked like a 30pointer to me (I our favour)...but no penalty was awarded. Go figure!