Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I think you are absolutely right. Complaining is not the solution, if there are not enough capable volunteer referees or enough funding, then we need to step up and lead the way. We are a part of this, this is not a resturant where we go to get a meal and expect good customer service. This is an organization, a culture, more importantly our organization and our culture. It reflects our values and we reflect its values, so lets try to make changes for the better starting from ourselves.

Again going back to the topic, I dont think the problem is about refereeing or the pinning penalty, as was eluded by some 1114 members. I am waiting for an explanation of the celebration (of team 48) that was seen by a considerable number of people. I am sure there is a good explanation (I hope) and once we find that explanation we can lay this matter to rest.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

In defense of team 48:

I have had the privilage of working with Delphi E.L.I.T.E. for two years now. This is the first year we have actually been teamed up with 48 as an alliance in the elimination rounds (Buckeye Regional winners: 291, 48, 379) and greatly appreciated their assistance in every aspect of FIRST. 48 is approx. 15 minutes down the road from us, and I have gotten to know the advisors, as well as the team very well. It hurts me to see so many people criticizing their performance. I truly believe that the drive team had no intentions of breaking 1114's arm, and yes, I was there, and did watch the match. I could not see any advisor or drive coach on this team condoning such an act, let alone celebrating it. This is a competition, and stuff like this happens, sometimes out of our control. Up to this point, Team 48 has had a very respectable reputation throughout the FIRST community. For people to bash a team in the manner that I have been reading in this thread is far beyond gracious professionalism.

Ashraf Hadi
Team 379
Build Advisor

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

To touch on this, I think the celebration is understandable for one major reason. What do you do, if you have just won the biggest match of your season? You are happy, you cheer. No matter what happened to the other team, any true competitor's first thought is "Oh my goodness, we just won!" Then not until after the fact, would it hit you what happened. I'm not saying 48 was in the right to cheer about the arm breaking, there is no hard evidence on that, but it was fine for them to cheer after the match.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Good point, although I think you could make an argument that "the count doesn't stop until the pinning robot has backed up 3 feet for 3 seconds" (the addition to the rule introduced at the drivers' meeting) takes precedence over whether pinning was actually interrupted by the pinned robot moving away from the field element. As the rules were originally written, you are correct, and we could get into a whole other discussion about whether rules should be changed for Championship, but that's beyond the point.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Have been a driver I understand that after the match is over one would celebrate. That is totaly understandable. However, some reports from this thread report celebration after the arm was broken(as I understand this was during the match) where as other people deny this. I would personally like to hear more eyewitnesses that were there on the scene and saw the presence or absence of this celebration. Because team 1114 has been hurt, and on the otherhand team 48 might be wrongfully blamed. For me the matter hinges on if there was indeed celebration at the breaking of the arm, if yes then there has to be a reasonable and good explanation. So that the two teams can lay this behind them and continue in a GP way from here on.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

how can 48 backup 3' feet if 1114 backs up with them? Although 48 does attempt to backup, seperation is never created due to the fact that 1114 backs up with 48 and remains in contact with them.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

It seems that the rules distinguish between the pinning itself (i.e. the definition that Alan quoted), and the time during which the robot is backing off.

My preferred interpretation of <G39> would be that the pinning count starts as soon as the pinning begins, and pauses whenever pinning ceases. When pinning ceases, the pinning team may back up 3 feet from the last position it occupied while it was still pinning, at which point a second, 3-second count begins. When that second count is exhausted, the first count is reset; but if the second count doesn't finish, and the team resumes pinning, the first count resumes from where it left off. This isn't the only possible interpretation, however, and I can understand that an alternate reading of the rule can greatly affect one's assessment of the situation in question.

By way of example of an alternate interpretation, there's a case to be made for the contention that the rule only specifies the 3-second retreat if pinning has occurred for a full and continuous 10 seconds. If pinning occurs for 8 seconds, is interrupted briefly for 1 second, and occurs again for another 8 seconds, you could argue that at no time did you "inhibit the movement of another ROBOT" "for more than 10 seconds" (at a time).* I'm skeptical that this was intended by the rule-writers, and I don't know if the rule was ever enforced this way, but as written, it seems that this interpretation is reasonably credible, and could lead to a misunderstanding regarding a referee's call. By this standard, and based upon the archived video footage, it seems like 48 was in full compliance with the pinning rule.

I believe that the rule calls for them to back up 3 ft from where they "release[d] the pinned ROBOT".

*This interpretation relies upon the fact that the rule specifies one reason why the 10-second count would be reset (10 s pinning, 3 s retreat), but does not enumerate any other reasons. Logically, we assume that the count resets if you stop pinning for long enough, but it isn't clear exactly when this occurs (assuming that the 10 s count and 3 s retreat are not completed). Since the precise formula for resetting the count (under the most obvious of circumstances) is left to the imagination, it isn't a stretch to speculate that the interpretation that I gave is legitimate.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Just to clarify, Team 1114 is not looking for an explanation or any sort of public apology. We've received some fragmented justifications via private channels, and we're content to leave it at that. As far as I'm concerned, this matter is at rest.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Seconded. I would love to ref, but it seems that the ref positions are never assigned to college refs. It's especially hard, because FIRST wants people with reffing experience, which gives no opportunity to get any except at offseason events.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

As a MARS Team 1523 supporter watching the match from the arena above the Curie field I found it hard to tell what occurred during the match. My impressions about semifinal 1-3 are an extension of what I saw in 1-1 and 1-2. Semifinal 1-1 was one of the most intense pushing/shoving matches I'd watched all year. It was obvious that both alliances were focused, skilled and determined. It is tremendously unfortunate that there are so many questions about the outcome and intent of their performance.

While I won't second guess the referee rulings, my greatest dissatisfaction throughout the competition and with this match was with how difficult it was to know why/how points (particularly penalty or bonus points) were or were not given. Following the Semifinal 1-3 match other spectators told me that 1114/469/1523 received a 10 point penalty for leaving robot parts on the field (1114's arm). Imagine the outrage this created.

In the future, greater information being shared by the Refs/announcer re: final scores for all matches would be extremely helpful.

Although this is probably not the right place, I'd like to thank Teams 1114 and 469 for allowing MARS Team 1523 to be a part of their tremendous alliance on Curie. The experience and chance to work with these teams was incredible.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

In defense of referees, there is no way they are going to be 100% perfect with calls, look at basketball refs, with years of experience they still miss things and get things wrong.

Refs will never be perfect, it would be nice if they were, but they never will be.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I'm not sure where you heard that. Did you know that 11 of the referees in Atlanta had been Head Refs at one or more regionals? Did you hear the Chief Ref give the resumes of the field Head Refs, listing 2 or 3 regionals each?

I thought the 3 feet for 3 seconds rule was new too - lo and behold, it's in the manual. It wasn't a change in the rules.

FIRST has some responsibility here. What is written in the manual is NOT what is being enforced in all cases. Yes, I'm saying there are some secret rules interpretations, which may come out only at drivers meetings, or may not be made known at all, and are not documented. For instance, was anyone ever penalized for a "foot-fault" this season? You wonder why? That's all I'm at liberty to say.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Are you saying the refs are well qualified, and thus their rulings are just.. or are you raising a question as to what it takes for a ref to be well-qualified, given that there were a consistent (ly high) number of bad rulings across the divisions?

How many mistakes before THE question can be raised?

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Also, I appear to be getting an aweful lot of negative rep for calling that studiness of the arm of 1114 a design flaw. I am 100% certain if they wanted to devote more of their resources to it they could have had a tougher arm. 1114 was, as a believed before coming to Atlanta and going into the finals(which I did not see much of them in), the best team there. The only possible issue I saw with their robot was a lack of horizontal bracing on the arm(which to me seemed the direction it would be more important as opposed to up and down, which to me looked fine). Our robot had a flaw too, our robot didn't have a ramp and overall wasn't that fast. If I were 1114 and I were going to try to make this robot better I would look at some sort of horizontal bracing on the arm, similarly, if I wanted to improve our robot I would make it have some sort of gearbox to go between fast and powerful.
And look, here is someone who thought the same thing as me. *shrug* I really didn't expect all the hate for making my comment on the design of 1114.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I already posted once regarding why I think the refs did a good job. If they had DQ'd 48, I'm sure we'd be arguing in the other direction. We've already had several discussions regarding lack of DQ's or DQ's without warning. A bit pointless, really.

Let's move on to how this can be prevented in the future.

Clarify and simplify the rules.

I think everyone would agree that this year had far to much rules-lawyering and unhappy folks as a direct result of the rulebook growing to the point where it's become VERY difficult to be proficient at it. When people in this post who are claiming to "know" the rules are disagreeing, the point is pretty much proven.

Simplify the rules. For instance you could disallow pinning entirely. You may push, you may not pin. You may block, you may not pin. You may not hold someone stationary against ANY object. Period. End of story. NO more counting, no more guessing.

While your at it, take a good hard look at the wiring rules, and every other ruleset in the game, and SIMPLIFY it to get us out of this whole rules-lawyer game so many people are falling in to. The quality of the refereeing of the matches is DIRECTLY proportional to the complexity of the rules.