Re: Einstein?
 

Agreed.

Re: Einstein?
 

Eugene,

Are you saying that an alliance should not be allowed to replace a robot with a broken arm? That for an alliance to be allowed to make a replacement the robot must be 100% immobile? Isn't this a bit excessive. Since the backup rule was put into place in 2005, I've seen many teams be replaced for reasons far less than complete immobility.

Now, I can definitely agree that 494's attempt to replace 997 falls into a gray area, but I think forcing teams to play with a robot until it's completely "dead" is going too far.

Then again, the rule does say "inoperable". As you described, that wording is pretty clear.

Re: Einstein?
 

Reading the dictionary, the meaning of the word inoperable is
pretty clear. The GDC could have used the word broken if they
did not mean inoperable in the stronger sense that it conveys.
I think that one might reasonably reach a conclusion that a robot
is inoperable while it still can roll around on the field, depending on
the situation, but in this years game there are too many different
ways to contribute to a win for just a broken arm, or a ramp that
is just below 12 inches, to get a robot classified as inoperable.

Eugene

Re: Einstein?
 

First of all, I find it very cowardly and offensive for someone to troll these forums anonymously. Your being on the floor taking pictures and self-admitted obscenities pretty much gives you away as either a member of 997 itself or of another friendly team from their area. If you’re going to say something like this you should at least make a fair representation of yourself like the rest of us.

It bothers me that I feel that I should have to even toss in my $0.02 here, but I think this is a bit ridiculous. It appears to me that the alliance captain and another member of the alliance weighed the opportunity cost between 997 and whoever the backup robot was in this situation only after coming to the realization that 997’s ramps could never count for the 12” lift period, even after extensive fixes. This is definitely a grey area for robot replacement (which means there are good reasons both for and against robot replacement), but there’s no harm in pursuing it. The only reason I can see that 997 would be upset about this would be because they would rather play and lose than to do what’s arguably in the best interest of the alliance and agree with the switch. The competition is a competition, and an alliance is like a hockey team. You want to win, and you want to do whatever you can and whatever’s in the alliance’s best interest to help it win. Not to mention the fact that if the alliance won with you subbing out there’s that 4th place on the alliance in the official records, so it’s not like you’re kicked to the curb with no recognition. Anyways, my point is that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with the alliance captain stating a case for a possible replacement.

With great respect Eugene it was pretty clear to pretty much everyone at the 2006 SVR that your team was one of the two main scoring threats on your alliance. It wouldn’t have made sense to take the backup robot at that point because it would have significantly decreased your alliance’s ability to win the regional not having your robot in play. It was very courageous and something that was very inspiring seeing a team doing all that it could to try to give its alliance the best shot at winning; that’s not to be forgotten, but to have such a harsh stance on robot replacements is also a bit... harsh for lack of a better word. Especially having seen a few robots who can drive in varying degrees be switched out.

Whatever happened happened. It’s over now.

By the way, I had absolutely no contact with 254 at all this season other than saying hi briefly to a couple people on the team at SVR. So don't think I'm taking their side because I'm a part of the team. I'm just speaking my mind.

-Bill Gold
(I take responsibility for my opinions)

Re: Einstein?
 

To shift this thread in a different direction (since it's so off-track already)

Why is it the highest unpicked team for non-Einstein replacements? I would think that it should logically be another pick by the same alliance. Thoughts?

Re: Einstein?
 

Just to let everyone know, since they keep saying different things about the intent of this thread...the intent was just to find out who would be playing who on Einstein, and was not expected to have any more posts after about 4 o'clock Saturday.

Re: Einstein?
 

I am not commenting on whether or not I feel that this strategy is okay. However, at least as far as robots with ripped of arms go, we have seen robots with broken arms and that sort of thing be replaced many times in the past few years. At BAE in 2005, we were the alliance captain and our arm was broken, we decided to ask for a replacement, which was allowed even though our robot could still drive. (This is only one example, but there are many) So I don't believe that any rules about the robot being completely inoperable have ever been enforced. I don't know about robots which are still in the condition that they were in when they were drafted.

Re: Einstein?
 

I think that the interpretation of the replacement rule should be strict (not harsh), so that it can't be used as an element of strategy. Ultimately, it is the role of the head ref to decide whether a given request meets the definition of the rule and an appropriate decision was made in this case. I could cite several hypothetical examples to demonstrate why I think that a strict interpretation of the rule is best, but at this point the issue is clearly left as it is.

Eugene

Re: Einstein?
 

Wow...
How did this thread get so convoluted????

It started with a simple question - it was answered almost right away, and then it just took off in whole other direction.

Reminder to all users -
I know it is easy to fall into a habit of "just responding", BUT - we really need to keep on topic, or else the threads just get confusing and never ending.

If you want to start another thread more specifically about a topic, by all means do so.

I think this thread should be done as the question Einstein? has been answered.

Mike Aubry
Engineering Lead - Chief Delphi

Re: Einstein?
 

Dictionary references aside, I can share with everyone, from having been on the GDC, that the "intention" of the term inoperable was used by the GDC to mean that a part or function of the robot in question was inoperable in regards to how it had been working previous - not the entire robot. There have been numerous examples of robots being replaced via this rule even when it could still "move" - and it's been within the rules every time at many different events.

Using the 2006 SVR has an example, when the wheel broke on the 1280 robot, the 1280 alliance absolutely had the choice to bring in the next robot for the final if they wished. It did not matter that they "could" bolt on a castor wheel and still compete - all that mattered was that they had a problem with the robot, a part of it was not working as it had been previously, and they worked feverishly to get it working in time for the next match (which was very impressive). The alliance captain in that match had a very simple choice - if they felt the 1280 robot, even with the quick repair made, would not perform as well as the possible replacement robot - they could have switched in the on deck robot for 1280. If they felt that even at less than 100% the 1280 robot gave their alliance a better chance than the on deck robot, they could stick with 1280. Either choice was legal within the rules, the alliance was informed of that, and they could have replaced 1280 if they wanted to - whether the 1280 robot was 100% inoperable or not, or even whether 1280 "wanted" or "didn't want" to be replaced has nothing to do with it.

If any alliance captain on any alliance feels that a function or part of one of their robots is inoperable (not the entire robot, but a part of it - arm, lift, ramp, motor, whatever) and it will not be fixed to work as needed in time for the next match - they have the right to bring in the next highest seeded team. That is the intention of the rule, has been for a few years now, and is how the field crews have been instructed by FIRST to enforce that rule.

There is no bad guy or good guy when an alliance is faced with such a decision. It's not easy. The rules allow them to go to the next highest seeded team if they choose. The entire reason the "replaced" team still is considered part of the alliance is to make sure they are included in any awards or medals the that alliance gets if they move on. The ability of the alliance captain to choose to replace a robot is not so they can offend or hurt the feelings of the robot not working 100%, it's to give all three teams (four, once the switch is made) on the alliance the best chance to move on.

I think people are overlooking a very key point: It's an "alliance", not a team, once the playoffs start. Each team on the the alliance should be worried about the best interest of the alliance, not their individual team - that why the system exists as it does and recognizes all 4 teams equally regardless how much each played or scored or whatever. It's suppossed to be "one for all and all for one" once the alliance is formed - not "each play for themselves and forget about the best interest of the alliance".

That's why there are reserves in sports, so that a "starter" can say "I'm not 100%, even though I can still play, I think the team will have a better chance if my reserve goes in for me - I need to put the interest of the team above the interest of myself getting staying in the game and getting a few more stats". To say the quarterback of a football team must be completely immobile/inoperable and have two broken legs before he can be substituted for would not be a logical rule (and certainly is not in the best interest of the individual player or the team). If the QB is dizzy, has a sprained ankle, or just has the flu and can't play to his previous ability is all that matters - if the "team" is better off with the backup is all the coach should need to decide. If the "team" should win the super bowl, all the players including the starting QB who was replaced would get a ring and should jointly celebrate their accomplishment.

Hope that helps clarify the discussion and the "intent" of the rule.

Re: Einstein?
 

If you're going to slander our team, why don't you at least have the guts to do so with your identity out in the open? You make a lot of claims, all heard second-hand from people who may or may not have given you the correct information, which you may or may not have understood correctly. Furthermore, to specifically call out a member of our team by name is entirely inappropriate.

There was no dark, malicious reason for trying to replace you.

494 was originally going to pick a third scoring robot. Somehow a mistake was made and that didn't happen.

We (both 494 and 254) were ready and willing to make the best of it at that point--until 494 tried to get on your ramps and could not, and we then made the discovery that your ramps did not lift to the full 12". Whether or not the referees had been giving you the full points is irrelevant--any way we measured it, after waiting any length of time for your pneumatics to recharge, your platforms did not reach 12".

Furthermore, you were never on our don't pick list for not lifting to 12". We had no idea that was the case at the time. You were infact on it, albeit at the very bottom with all the other ramp bots, simply because we valued a scorer more.

Replacing a robot is never fun or easy. No feelings were intended to be hurt--it was attempted solely to give the alliance it's best competitive chance when it was discovered that one robot's primary function was not going to work. It's unfortunate that it ever happened in the first place, but name calling, finger pointing, and trash talking aren't going to make things better.

-Cory

Re: Einstein?
 

I am the representative that 494 sent out for picking. It is all my fault that this whole situation occurred. We on the Martians really liked 997's lifts. The thing was we never attempted to get on (Our Mistake). When we were locked into the number one seed, we went to the top two teams on our list. When number one said they would not like to play with us, we obliged and went to the second team on our list, team 254. We talked to them about our alliance plan, and generally agreed on a game plan. We for the most part wanted a third hang bot that could play D. What we on 494 failed to mention was that if team 997 fell to us we really wanted to take them, because that is what our team thought the ideal alliance was (2 Hangers, 2 Ramps, 1 Strong Defense). So when we were picking, and the chance to take a team that we thought very very highly of came forth I jumped on it, doing what team 494 thought was right, but not doing what we had previously discussed. When I came back to the pits, I found that our team really struggled climbing 997's ramps and 997 could not climb 254's ramps. This was compounded by the fact that when we measured the lift that 997 did of 254 it was only 11 3/4 inches. The problems were building on us, and that is when the idea of the backup robot was brought up by a member. The team 1912 was very high on 254's list and we debated about it. When 254 told us 1912 had climbed their ramps, we decided that playing with a robot that could not lift the two of us to 60 points, by our measurements was not something that would be good, and the decision's was made mutually by 254 and 494 to approach 997 about it. We brought our plan to their attention and told them of our intentions. When we told the refs, they debated and told us it was not doable because 997 was operable. We went into elims and played our hardest. In the semifinals, thanks to some smart driving, 494 was even able to climb 997's lift, something that they were unable to do before. This is my account, and this should be the last post on this topic. I take responsibility for screwing up and not alerting 254 of the possibility that we would take them and apologize to everyone involved that I hurt.