Einstein?
 

Does anyone know which division plays which on Einstein?

Re: Einstein?
 

einstein is the field where the finals are held for the champs of each division

it is also used as the lego field for the first 2 days of competition

Re: Einstein?
 

I'm pretty sure he was asking which division plays which once they get to Einstein.

Re: Einstein?
 

I believe its random...

Re: Einstein?
 

Last year, they released it before Nats in a team update I think. I couldn't find anythign like that this year though.

Re: Einstein?
 

Einstien;) :p
1126, 229, 191
233, 71, 179
1114, 469, 1523
190-987-177

Re: Einstein?
 

Last year at nationals we won the curie division and I beleive we played archimedes...whichever divsion the thunderchickens were in. So that would mean curie vs. arch and newt vs. gal. But for some reason two years ago I remember we were in Newton and we won the whole thing and I think we played gal in the finals. Maybe it is random, or maybe I have bad memory.

Re: Einstein?
 

I know it changes every year, I just don't know how they change it.

Re: Einstein?
 

not bad, 2/4. with only watching matches on Gal. :P


Here it is for real:

Einstein
Curie: 330, 910, 1270
Newton: 987, 190, 177
Galileo: 173, 1902, 1319
Archimedes: 233, 71, 179

Re: Einstein?
 

What happens if a robot is disabled during the Finals of the Champiosnhip?

Re: Einstein?
 

By disabled I'm assuming that you mean broken, and the alliance needs the backup bot.
The backup bot for each division winning alliance is the alliance captain of the respective division finalist.
I believe the finalist captain can decline to be the backup and in that case the first selected team by the finalist captain is the backup.

If a robot is disabled during the match, by the referees, well, that's how the game works.

Re: Einstein?
 

so did we get another clue about a three colored light or was that just some toy that somebody at first threw together. What do you guys think?

Re: Einstein?
 

They actually had that last year, and said that you could expect it in next year's game (what would become Rack n' Roll), but nothing is ever set in stone. I believe the GDC uses Atlanta as their first major meeting for 2008 and they start throwing around ideas for next year. Well I guess we can expect to see the Light back next year, but in 3 colors? Sounds like a challenge.

Re: Einstein?
 

I doubt we would see 3 colors when 1 color doesn't even work right half of the time. I kinda want to blame the stage style lighting that FIRST uses and how it varies from field to field because no setup is exactly the same. But that's another discussion.

Re: Einstein?
 

Archimedes played Curie
and
Galileo played Newton

then

Archimedes played Newton

Newton was the Champion

Re: Einstein?
 

Im not sure if you're talking about the 330/910/1270 DQ, but what happened to was 1270 was disabled on either "intentionally flipping" or "contact outside the bumper zone". We're still not sure what exactly was the call, but the alliance was DQed in SF 2-1.

Does anyone have this match on footage? The blue alliance has it, but it doesn't show our interaction with 71. I couldn't see exactly what happened; I was behind the drivers’ station so I want to see what the actual contact looked like from other people's point of view. But I do want to say that I know my drivers and they would not intentionally flip another robot, that’s not the kind of game play we promote. 1270 was trying to get in a position to score the ringer that was in our claw when 71 ended up on top of us and flipping.

Anyhow, congratulations to 71, 233, and 179 on the win. The last match (Einstein: SF2-2) was intense! Great driving 179, making it up that ramp was game ending!


I want to especially say thank you to our alliance, teams 330 and 910.
In all my years, this was the smoothest working alliance I’ve been in. The 3 drive teams made smart decisions on the field and covered each other’s backs. You all did a great job and better be proud of yourselves! Thanks again and good luck in future competitions!

Re: Einstein?
 

I watched the match from the stands and thought I saw both robots with ringers trying to score the same spider on the scorer's side of the field. The next thing I saw was 71 flipping backwards and the 1270 robot backing away with the ringer still in its gripper. The head ref immediately ran over to the red alliance station and disabled 1270.

When I got home, I watched the match again (I had recorded NASA TV's broadcast), but during the critical moment, the TV coverage was showing 330 and 179 battling on the crowd side of the rack. The next view had 71 already on the ground and the ref heading towards the red alliance station. Given the head ref's decisive action, he must have felt that 1270 had intentionally tipped 71.

After the very rough play I had just witnessed on Curie, I was somewhat surprised to see the red card flashed on 1270. The message here is that different referees will have different levels of tolerance for aggressive play. After 13-14 matches with a referee crew that "just let's them play", a less tolerant referee can catch you off guard.

It's a hard thing to swallow, but the ref's have a very difficult job and are doing their best to enforce the rules.

Re: Einstein?
 

So, what stops alliances on Einstein from swapping out teams to create stronger alliances. For example, what if 177 "broke" on Einstein and needed to be replaced by 1124? What if 910 "broke" and needed to be replaced by 1732 who also "broke", so was replaced by 67?

Re: Einstein?
 

Tom, thats odd, the 6 or so other 125 mentors were thinking the exact same thing.
Ethics Q: Would such a move be called good strategy or ungracious play?
If ever teams were required to demonstrate a lack of functionality, who is to decide just how functional robot in question should be?
To sum our talks, we were theorizing that in a division, the three best robots could play WITH each other... depending upn their seed and alliance selection.

Re: Einstein?
 

If this was in effect last year, there is no way I wouldn't have tried something. It is smart play, and it is in the rules as fair. We had a half functioning robot, and by all means we would have easily taken them out. And by chance, maybe that first alliance captain would have been "broke" as well, and we could've gotten some other fantastic alliance partner.

It might not be ethical, but it is fair.

Re: Einstein?
 

I actually wondered the same thing myself when I discovered the rule of the alliance captian being the backup. However your last question with 910 needing to be replaced by a "broken" 1732 thus brining in 67 would not have been able to happen. The rule stated that if the alliance captian would not be able to participate because or being broken/declining the offer, they would then revert to the normal system of the highest ranked non-drafted team from thier division.

Re: Einstein?
 

Ah, we had been told it was then given to the alliance captains first pick.

Re: Einstein?
 

I don't think it would be a strategic decision. Your alliance has worked with you though the division eliminations. They know how to play your strategies, and suddenly having to replace them on Einstein should probably only be used if your partner is disable, not just to get a "better" robot. This game is not won by robots, it's won by alliances.

Re: Einstein?
 

It may be won by alliances. But if you have three offensive powerhouses....I think it might do just as well, if not better.
The example Tom and I have been discussing today is of ours last year on Einstein.
195 was having issues, from Newton Elims, that we could not identify, but they were still semi functional. With this option, we could have put in 111 as our third partner (note, they were the first pick of the A.C., this is what we were told and basing our theory off of).
The question we had was "Which would win; 25, 968, 195, or 25, 968, 111?" We both had a hearty laugh about it, and continued on with different ideas.
While yes, the A-Bomb, would not have been implemented without 195, but with 111 on our side, why would we need it? This year was different as you know, and definitely very alliance oriented though. I was talking to some other s online at the time of selections, and as soon as you made your alliance, I had declared you guys the clearcut winner of Newton, and my odds-on favorite for Einstein, just because I knew the compatability, and the style you guys woudl play.

Re: Einstein?
 

Sorry for the IM posting...
For example I will use Archimedes div. from this year.
494 seeded first and picked 254. 494 then whent on to pick 997. Lets say that that alliance met the 233 alliance in the Archimedes finals and beat them. Now on Eintein the 494 254 997 alliance has the option to declare 997 as broken to opt for 233. (no offense to 997, but 233 is 233: enough said)
This new hypothetical 494 254 233 alliance by your logic would not fare as well in competition? I think not.

Re: Einstein?
 

Although I understand that it's perfectly within the rules, I find it unfair in a few ways. First of all, it's unfair to the team that you declare "broken". Even if their drive team agrees that it's a good move strategically, there would obviously be someone on that team who would be insulted; they spent six weeks building this robot and all weekend to get to this point, only to be switched out at the most exciting part of the competition, and losing a very rare opportunity to play on Einstein.

I also think that it's mildly disrespectful to the champions of the other divisions. They might stand no chance of winning without using the same strategy; what if they don't feel that it's an allowable strategy?

This is not to mention the type of underhanded play during divisional eliminations which go along with this strategy (let's say you're AC 1, you want to pick the second seed but instead pass them up knowing that on Einstein you can swap them in, so you pick the next best robot instead; or the alliance captain throws the finals knowing that they can be swapped in on Einstein).

P.S. Not trying to bash your idea at all, I thought of the same thing.

And, offtopic, would a backup robot brought onto Einstein be considered Divisional Champions (as far as trophies, etc.)?

Re: Einstein?
 

If this alliance manged to beat the 233/71/179 alliance, then why would they need 233? Obviously this alliance had better robots, or a better combined strategy than the opponent (still hypothetically). I mean no offense to 1124, my team's alliance was better with different robots. Was 177 a better scoring robot than 1124? Not by the numbers. However, there were very good reasons for picking team 177, reasons that eventually won us the championship. From what I've seen, no TEAM can win a championship, it must come from the alliance; from the AC, to the first pick, and probably most importantly, the second pick.

A lot of alliance captains are similar in nature; powerful scoring* robots that lead the alliance. First picks are also very similar; similarly powerful scoring robots that will either pickup the slack if the lead robot is taking some heat, or the robot that will take the heat for the AC. However, the third pick is a real wild card for most teams. Do you pick a defensive robot? What about another mid level tube scorer? Do I pick a team that may not be good on defense just so I can get their ramps for the endgame or maybe a backup ramp should my other partners get caught up? How about a robot that may not do much of anything but guarantee us 30 points in ramp bonus? All of these are viable strategies assuming that they fit your alliance.
To use my own team as an example, we went with the idea that we wanted to pick our own alliance, even as 8th seed. On our ranked list were teams that could score well either all alone or under hard defense. We then had a second list of what became known as "177 and replacements". The plan from Saturday morning was to pick a good tube scorer like 987 to help spread out the opponents defense, and team 177 or a short list of teams that would be a suitable replacement for them if they were chosen early. Either 190 and 987 would score on the rack while the other was defended, while 177 would go to the back of the playing field and either place tubes on their side, or strictly play defense. We had seen them do both of these things very well on Friday, and we knew they would be able to climb our ramps for a bonus. In the end, it turned out that our ALLIANCE won us the championships.
Think back to two weeks ago when the divisions were released. What were the odds of any of those teams winning the championship? Sure, each team was very strong and had a good chance at getting picked, or even winning the division, but even I was not expecting to be as successful as we were. My own brother said that his team (40) managed to beat 190 and 177 in prior regionals, and 190 had defeated 987 at SVR. It was only "by our powers combined" did we do so well.

*Note that for this year's game, scoring is defined as putting a lot of tubes on the rack, or lifting two robots to 12 with near perfection.

Re: Einstein?
 

Ok, you take 190/987/177. I'll take 254/233/1124. Want to play a game?:cool:

Re: Einstein?
 

I would like to mention that there is also a very large factor that has not been brought up about why the 190, 987, 177 alliance would be much more reluctant to pick a replacement.

Every situation, every alliance is unique. In our case it was our ramps. Due to their design, there is a very specific way in which the partners must climb. Prior to picking any partners, we first brought them to our pit and ensured that they could not only drive up us, but that we could lift them. And then we practiced it.

Bringing in a fresh team that was inexperienced at it was a risk we would have taken only in the most dire of circumstances.

The situation is different for every alliance, and every alliance must make the decision for themselves. I would like to think that no alliance on Einstein would purposely use this strategy as a means to win the championships.

Re: Einstein?
 

Had the rule existed then, you actually would have gotten 176, not 111. It's the alliance captain of the finalist alliance, not the alliance captain's first pick.

Re: Einstein?
 

Yeah, I understand that now, I was talking about what we were first told.

Re: Einstein?
 

This rule allows for possibly the top 3 seeded teams in a division to play TOGETHER as an alliance on einstein:

EXAMPLE:
Lets say 254 finishes 1st in archi
233 finishes 2nd
and 386 finishes 3rd

254 picks 233...386 picks XXX
they are on opposite sides of the bracket

254/233 beat 386/XXX in the finals of archi

We go to einstein........

254/233's teammate 'breaks down'...they go to their replacement, captain of the finalists alliance...good old 386

The new archimedes alliance on einstein ??...number 1 seed 254, number 2 seed 233, and number 3 seed 386

I just dont think that is right...if its legal...sorry to 254/233's partner...but chances are if you go down...theyre prob not thinking twice about their new partner.

Re: Einstein?
 

When a robot that is very good at scoring faces a robot that is very good at preventing scoring, they both score the same number of points. Zero. Strategy (and a little luck) is everything.

Re: Einstein?
 

Erroneous.
Speaking in terms of tubes: The defensive robot has the scoring potential of 0. The robot being defended has potential to score. One cannot say that both robots will not score a point simply because one is defending the other.
Strategy is good, luck is a huge other. I suggest all to go watch The Blue Alliances archive of the final match video. The tube placement by EDIT 987 /EDIT was a great strategic move I am not demeaning that in any way, but I don't think the tube had any effect on 179 not climbing 71's ramps.

Re: Einstein?
 

It was 987 that pushed that tube on. And no, it probably didn't have a physical effect on 179's ramp climbing ability, but it apparently had a psychological effect.

We can go on forever debating this, however, I invite you to look at the facts: this has been an option for at least the past two years. We know of a number of people that have through of this strategy, and yet it has never been used. If it becomes a problem, I would assume FIRST would fix it. But as I see it, there is no problem, and no reason to change it.

Just as an aside, has a replacement ever been used on Einstein?

Re: Einstein?
 

It wasn't a strategy the last two years. This is the first year the rule existed.

Re: Einstein?
 

Ah my bad. I assumed that since there was talk about 25, 986 and 195 swapping out, that it existed. There goes my argument.

In past years, what was the rule on replacement teams on Einstein?

Re: Einstein?
 

Highest unpicked seed from the division.

Re: Einstein?
 

This is not true. The rule certainly existed last year. 177 was on Einstein with 201 and 1126. When 1126 ran into shooter problems, we considered replacing them with the captain of the highest seeded alliance from Galileo, 1625. Winnovation was as good as SPARX. In fact, had we substituted Winnovation (an extremely good scorer) for ourselves (an extremely poor scorer, but strong defensive robot), Einstein 2006 may have gone down very differently. But honestly, who wants to substitute themselves out of the championship? It would have given us a better shot of winning, but we wouldn't have been the winners.

The rule existed last year as well.

Re: Einstein?
 

Wrong, Greg.
The original three-team alliance shall only have one opportunity to draw from the teams on standby. If a second robot from the
alliance becomes inoperable, then the alliance must play the following matches with only two (or even one) teams. It is in the best
interests of all teams to construct their robots to be as robust as possible to prevent this situation.


8.4.4.2 Einstein Playoffs
IF the above alliance wins their division and moves on to the Einstein Playoffs, at that point the alliance can move
Team C back into play in place of Team D, making Team D the backup again.
In this case, if this alliance wins the Einstein Playoffs, the Grand Champions would be teams A, B, C, and D.
If Team C is not able to be repaired and teams A, B, and D play and win the Einstein Playoffs, the Grand Champions
would be teams A, B, C, and D.
If Team C is not able to get repaired and if one of team A, B or D gets damaged in the Einstein Playoffs, thus creating a
need for a third robot, then the alliance may bring up Team E (the highest remaining seeded team from their division,
which did not participate in the Divisional Playoffs) to replace the damaged robot.
In this case, if the alliance with Team E wins the Einstein Playoffs, the Grand Champions will be teams A, B, C, D, and
E.
In any case, once a replacement robot is used in the Einstein Playoffs, none of the teams who sat out a match can come back
into play.

Re: Einstein?
 

I would argue that the defending robot has a scoring potential of 30, for getting up 12" on the other team's ramps. If you can keep a normally high scoring team's scores much lower than normal due to defense, it amplifies the significance of the ramps.

Perhaps it has to do with how you think about the game - in New England (this is a very broad generalization) we have much lower scoring matches, not because our robots and drivers aren't as good, but because we value defense much more than other areas.

I heard someone on the MARTA train on the way to the airport at 6 AM talking about how disappointed they were in the finals this year, since the scores were so low. They inferred this had to do with bad alliances on the field, I infer it is just playing the game differently. I hate when people say you aren't playing the game the way the GDC designed it to be played. I think the GDC should worry about designing a game, and not about forcing teams to play it the way they want. I much prefer the way this year's finals were to 2005's where it was just a scoring fest to see who could score the most tetra's the fastest, and never getting in anyone's way. The strategy and defense aspect evens the playing field for teams who can't afford the money, space, and time for a full field and practice robots, who will obviously do better in all-out scoring, even if their robot isn't necessarily a better designed robot.

Re: Einstein?
 

However, note that the offensive bot also has that potential of 30, so they offset. Therefore, the offensive bot still has greater offensive potential.

Again, I'm not trying to say your win wasn't deserved, I thought it was. I called you guys to win it from the get-go. You played the game how it needed to be played to win it, and I would have done the same.

Note: I am tightly affiliated with 177.

Re: Einstein?
 

I agree - however, the tube scores grow exponentially, whereas the ramp scores are fixed, and therefore keeping the number of tubes scored down greatly increases the effect of the ramps.

It all is kind of irrelevant in a general view and varies greatly on who you are playing, how good (if they exits) their ramps are, etc.

I keep saying to myself how close our wins were, and how if we had done one thing differently we would have lost. But then I have to remember, "close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades".

Re: Einstein?
 

Regardless of the ramp score, I was talking strictly in tubes with the prior realization of any team being able to climb a ramp(hopefuly), thus off-setting as Corey stated. As for the people on the Marta, the GDC makes the game... its gets played, done. I personally believe that a different style alliance not shown on Einstein would have been able to trump any alliance shown there. This alliance is definitly able to be formed also, it isn't a conglomeration of 3 top qualifiers.
Your alliance did a great job however. Congratulations on the win.

Re: Einstein?
 

accually you are not allowed to do this,
when the ppofs decided before the first quarterfinal match that they did not want us on their alliance they tried substituting us but the refs would not let them because our robot worked perfectly. As it turns out that same thing has happened before and now to substitute a robot out it needs to be broken.

Re: Einstein?
 

How did the Refs rule that one though?
How are they sure you aren't broken?
If I was 254/494, I would've protested it. It isn't up to the refs to determine it.

Re: Einstein?
 

For the record, 494 was the alliance captain, and they were the ones who approached the head referee.

It was a consensus among both teams.

Re: Einstein?
 

I would consider lifts that only raise to 11-3/4" to be broken, unless of course they were designed to lift to this height.

Re: Einstein?
 

When the situation was brought up, someone pulled out the rule book and pointed to 9.4.3:

As long as a robot can move about and function as it had throughout the tournament up to that point, I'd say it was operable.

Re: Einstein?
 

My determination here though, is that "inoperable" means unable to preform to their fullest. Therefore if a ramp has been failing, they are "inoperable". If there arm gets torn off, they are "inoperable".

Re: Einstein?
 

If an alliance decided it was in their best interest, they could make a robot very inoperable very quickly.

Re: Einstein?
 

The status of a robot as defined per 'operable' and 'inoperable' is not defined in the terms section of the rules so the ruling should.... go to the refs?
As I see the rule, I would say that that term is undefined and becomes a judgement call which is the refs responsibility to determine.
I am now challenging the rules of the game in asking how is it the refs responsibility to determine whether 1 out of the 80 odd robots he or she has seen that day to be operable or not? Shouldn't that call be the call of the alliance captain?
Hopping more into the frying pan, where would the ref (if left to his or her disgression) draw the line for operability?

Re: Einstein?
 

I'm not sure how exactly they made the judgment on this one, I was not the alliance captain and I was not included in on the talks. I'm sure they had a reason for their call but you would have to ask the team member from 494 how they decided a broken robot from a working one,


and BTW our ramps had always (in 2 regionals and so far at nationals) been given 12 inches, the only times they had not at nationals was when one team went off the back and was hanging down and the other time 1662 broke off their arm and had it dangling off the side.

Re: Einstein?
 

Hmm interesting...


It was brought up to me that the "Head" mentor of 494 Had a 20 minute talk with the "head" mentor of 997 after everything was over...



The story goes...

Throughout duration of the competition 494 thought highly of 997. When it came time for alliance selections 494 was ranked number 1. They chose the poofs. The 3rd round came back to 494. The "setup" they wanted was two scoring robots, and a "pushing" robot. According to the poofs, 997 was on the "do not pick list" because they could not fit on their ramps and did not lift the poofs to a full 12 inches. The rep from 494 "didn't see it" and chose 997 without thinking twice.

When Quarterfinal match came round' 254, 494, and 997 were about to enter the field. I was on the floor taking pictures when I hear 997 is to be substituted. The excuse was that the ramps didnt work right. My initial reaction was....(several obscenities)

As you all know the ruling was to keep 997 in the picture and go on with the matches.

(during one of the quarterfinal matches) I looked at EJ (mentor from 254) straight in the eyes and asked him what the deal was. He told me that it was 494's decision to substitute 997 and that they really never gave an excuse for it, taking the poofs out of the picture. interesting....

The matches continued on to the semi's and eventually this alliance was eliminated. Not due to the fact that both 254 and 494 were not lifted to a height of 12 inches + but....to the fact that the poofs could not stay on their feet...2 rounds in a row. Both 997 and 494 did their best to hold off both alliances. blah blah blah you all watched the rounds.

When 997 was packing up the robot a The "head" mentor from 997 wanted to get the truth on this whole saga and went over to 494. The mentor from 484 proceeded to tell situation of how the 254 did not want 997 in the first place because they could not lift to a full 12 inches, and they convinced/concurred 494 to sub them out at the beginning of the round.

An extremely successful team like 254 has a lot of "Power" so to speak when it comes to running a finals alliance team. They are/were respected for it.

What that tells me is that EJ straight up lied to me about 254 not being involved in the substitution process. Ugh? am i confused....did i hear wrong...? i hope so. It just brings me down that a highly respected member of 254 would look at me in the eyes and lie to me?



bah....im done talking about this.



F.R.

Re: Einstein?
 

our Member with the media pass was also told by the alliance captain of 254 that it was 494 decision to substitute us and that they had nothing to do with it. The conclusion you stated above is the same one that we came to out on the field, and after our Head Mentor talked to you. I find that this was not gracious of professional, I personally don't like being lied to, I am not trying to accuse anyone here but the simple fact it that someone did say an untruth. If it was an accident or a mistake that is one thing, but I have heard the same thing from a couple people.

Re: Einstein?
 

I guess winning is everything now-a-days.

Re: Einstein?
 

You sure EJ didn't say it was up to 494 (as the alliance captain) to make the decision?? (as in, the Refs didn't care what 254's opinion was. 494, as the alliance captain, was responsible for conveying the alliances opinion to the ref) I was there too, and there was a lot of confusion and a lot of hurt feelings... the bottom line was this... when we tested the ramps/platforms, at full lift, when 254's bot was on the platform, the top of the platform measured 11.75". When we attempted to lift the platform in an effort to remove any possible delfection, the height remained the same. Furthermore, 494 was not even able to climb up the platform at all! Their casters behind their rear set of wheels made it impossible to climb over the platforms 1" lip.

Re: Einstein?
 

Im positive he told me that. I'm also aware that the lift was not all the way. They waited 5 mins to be sure there was enough pressure. but they only did it once. apparently the 5 min of waiting was enough justification that the ramp didn't work. 494 did make it on 997's ramp. 997 just had to be in the lifting zone backwards for it to work.

Re: Einstein?
 

Can we please get this thread back on topic? The discussion is about whether or not it is a valid strategy to use, not whether a particular mentor provided wrongful information. Since 494 was the captain, they must have talked to a ref. Can we get clarification of what exactly the ref said about not being allowed to substitute, and if there is a common ruling on what qualifies as "inoperable"?

Re: Einstein?
 

Inoperable is a completely broken state, aka dead on the field,
or if next years game is in water as some have rumored, dead
in the water. Inoperable also means dead in the sense that it
can't be made operable in an allowed timeout. If you had a
wheel knocked off you might consider yourself inoperable, but
then again you might bolt on a caster and continue to play as
1280 did as a finalist in SVR last year.

A robot with an arm ripped off is not inoperable, it can still play
defense. A robot with a lift that comes up 1/4 inch short of
12 inches can still lift a pair of robots 4 inches and score 30 points
doing it. This is far from inoperable. If your robot could not roll
around on the carpet, I would call it inoperable.

You pick your alliance, and you play your elimination matches.
If a robot is inoperable, it is quite obvious to everyone.

Eugene

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.