Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Brian, while I respect your opinion and that of all the other teams who prefer to practice their offensive craft without being harassed by the little guy, I'm not going to let one unfortunate accident out of countless cleanly and safely played qualifying and elimination round matches over the course of four competitions this season serve as the galvanizing symbol for some kind of offensive rallying cry to eliminate all defense in FIRST competitions.

I continue to believe that defense is an integral and necessary part of the game which adds a dynamic flair to the competition (robots changing strategies on the fly) and if done right, can better engage the audience in the on the field action. I thought the GDC did an excellent job this year of creating a game where both offensive and defensive alliances could equally show off their skills AND succeed. You need look no further than the Einstein finals to see the kind of alliance diversity that was allowed to shine through to the final stage. Some may have found the Einstein finals boring; I found them to be a refreshing mix of both offensive and defensive strategies on display at the same time.

I feel a combination of better education and rule enforcement are the best ways to eliminate the most egregious forms of damage due to excessive defense. How are teams expected to know what not to do if no one shows them exactly what not to do? Set the limit visually and then enforce it. FIRST has a safety video it shows at each competition - why not a defense video? Combine examples of appropriate and inappropriate contact using real robots with other examples of taboo actions and the corresponding penalties that may be called. If teams see what is illegal before the competition begins, they will have a weaker argument when challenging any referees' calls, and the refs will be more empowered to make the tough calls when they are needed. It will also give all referees a common visual baseline upon which all their subsequent rulings can be built.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I agree with you on that Travis. There is no way you can eliminate defense for a few reasons, a couple you already posted. But another major one I can think of, is the inability of some teams to build something complex, like an arm, that can function on a winning level.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I think it's going to be difficult to find someone who wants this thankless task for $500 and about a week of work. It might be a nice gesture to our current volunteers, though.

You're blithely stating here that you can fit the entirety of borderline and questionable calls into a 10 minute video. I find it difficult to believe you could fit enough material onto even a 2 hour DVD. At least, that's assuming you want calls based entirely on the situations from the video. Otherwise you're still depending on human judgement. Honestly, we're going to keep arguing about reffing until the GDC designs a game where we build robot refs, or everyone accepts the fact that people are human and there are far more people in the audience judging the refs than there are refs to watch the field.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Yes, Travis I couldn't agree more... defense is there, and it always will be. If it weren't, FIRST would not be the same competition. It is there for "the little guy". It makes it so teams that don't have thousands of dollars to spend on building their robot can compete with what they are given in the kit. To suggest eliminating it is (for lack of a better phrase) Just plain stupid. Would you watch football if there were no defense? Would you watch soccer, hockey, or any other sport? I don't think so.

Defense is part of the game, and it especially was this year (contrary to my original thoughts) . The fact that one bad thing happened to one robot Doesn't mean it should be sneered at or looked down upon.


-Cody C


P.S. *all in good fun* You know what a robot with a broken arm would be really good at? Defense. *all in good fun*

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I rarely call out people, but in this case i feel a minor need to do so. I will not speak names though.

Not everyone feels this way sadly, i will say that one of the well known mentors on this forum has had a conversation with me basically saying a robot that does nothing but play D is not good enough. Having a built robot to play a certain style, maybe not be a total Difference Maker offense is not good enough to make them proud. I know i would be very proud with anything that is finished and been able to play on the field. Sadly, not everyone see's it this way.

To keep this post, within this thread and such, i see no problem with D in the game and seek a change similar to what Travis is saying.

Edit//
Per request from the person, for some odd reason he wants to be kown for this. The person is your beloved John V Neun

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=54562&

I can't help but think that the Drivetrain "Arm's Race" is not what FIRST is about. Some may feel this is off-topic, but if no robot was capable of exerting a force sufficient to turn the rack or to snap aluminum box tubing, then this wouldn't be a problem.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I don't think a quick explanation re: how or what penalty/bonus was incurred/awarded would slow matches down. There is always down time as robots are collected or set up on the field between matches. The educational benefit for spectators and teams would be great. It would cut down on misunderstandings on just how final scores were arrived at. It is valuable hearing explanations why flags are thrown in other sports.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Defensive play is getting a bit out of hand. Partly due to the nature of the game but also how much of it went "unpunished". We were the victims of questionable defensive play at Bayou (that's in another thread) that went without a penalty. The sad thing is because of the lack of penalty calls at that regional, our driver played much more aggressively at our next regional and tipped a robot in the final match. He flat out admitted it to me and didn't feel that bad about it (he knew we were going to lose). Very disheartening.

I don't think defense needs to be there for the "little guy". We're given a kit frame, wheels, and transmissions. Even the little guy needs more of a challenge than to build a defense bot.

Would a more offensive focused game be that bad next year? Some twist on 2001 perhaps. I really enjoyed some of the offensive matches where the whole rack was almost full of ringers and robots rushing back to do the ramps at the end. I found that very exciting, didn't anyone else?

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I have to say I agree with this post. We were at Curie too, and as the competition went on, the play got more and more violent. Let's just say that no one was surprised when the Curie alliance got DQed at Einstein for playing the same way they had been playing. By not calling it, the refs allowed it to escalate. It is hard to say where the line should be drawn, but the rough play exhibited throughout the finals crossed it, especially when it came to ramming and pinning.

Additionaly, the penalties are not big enough to truly prevent this kind of play. At Chesapeake in the elimination rounds, we had another teams arm enter our robot and yank out a wire. For this, they recieved 30 points worth of penalties and a yellow flag. A shame that the unpenalized score was 64-32. When a single ringer can more than cancel out penalties for rough play, the penalties don't mean anything, and they will not deter illegal play.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Just speculating here, but perhaps the refs heard about the incidents on both Archimedes and Curie, and may have tried to improve the quality of the reffing for the finals on Einstein. If this is true, I commend them for realizing their mistakes and trying to fix them, and my question then becomes why this only came up for the last two rounds of play in the entire season, and not after 37 regional competitions.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I know I have definitely discussed these reffing issues numerous times before, most notably in the Palmetto Regional thread.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

there were definantly questionable calls during the 37 regionals, but the mistakes are amplifide once teams get to the championships. many stories could be told about the questionable call at the regionals too.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Travis,

I apologize for my post was not being quite clear. I agree with you that I liked this years game, as well as 2004,2005, 2006 and that defense can make it more exciting. I am not necessarily advocating no defense. My point is this; as long as we have defense, we will have controversy--but there should not be. If the majority wants defense, no problem. Then lump it. And it is always more than just one little incident. 254 could make an argument for no calls on Archimedes. We have been consistently the most defensively abused team in FIRST( 233 took the brunt for us at nats). Like it, no. But we accept it. Yes we can pay the refs, train the refs, ect,ect. But don't expect anything different. And don't give me this little guy-big guy justification for defense. FIRST has to define goals of what it is trying to accomplish in the competition and if it allows a box of rocks to compete effectively against a well-engineered machine, ok( 48 is NOT a box of rocks). Every year we have these monster posts on calls, but why? That is my point.

Sincerely,

Brian Beatty

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Better defined rules as well...

I know it's tough, but they need a better way of defining ramming...

When I asked at the driver's meeting, the ref answered that it was completely subjective.

I got called for ramming in qualifying matches on galileo playing 10% as rough as I was in the semi's (sorry for breaking your panel 968, it wasn't intentional) and the final's (sorry for breaking your chain 330, it wasn't intentional) at San Diego. At the end of San Diego I asked theref how much farther would I have had to go to get a ramming penalty, to which he replied "I wouldn't call one because it was all bumper to bumper contact".

When such fluctuation is allowed just in reading the rules, there is a problem.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

i agree. there will probably not be any change in the way that calls are made because of humans. each human that makes calls has an opinion, thus, each call that is made is made on the particular judgement of the ref. this is something that cannot be changed.