Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Karthik:
Fact: After the arm snapped off, 48 stopped playing defense on 1114, making it seem like they knew what had happened

Carl:
Just because they knew what happened doesn't make them guilty! It may be hard to see from behind the rack and across the field, but sounds travels fine and I'm sure they hear the crack and saw the arm dangling from the ringer...
They stopped playing defense on 1114 because playing defense against a bot that can't score isn't much use. Or would it be more "graciously professional" to pretend like they still did?

Karthik:
Team 48 denies knowing that the arm snapped off, this is what I am disputing. I agree it doesn't make them guilty of showing intent, but it does show that the knew the arm broke off, that's all.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but what I think you're trying to say is Karthik is misinterpreting what Carl is saying, and what Carl is saying is that Carl didn't realize that 1114's arm was about to fail before it did?

Carl is not on 48, let alone their driveteam. I don't understand how you think he could not have realized their arm was going to break before it did. In the video, the arm clearly moves the rack, flexes, and then the aluminum tubing snaps. I don't understand how 48 could have failed to see the rack spinning, the spider legs pushed all to one side, and thought "oh, this is normal and fine." 48 then clearly pulls off after the snap, like they recognized what they did. I don't understand what the issue is. Please clarify.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Back to the rule, pinning is "inhibit[ing] the movement of another ROBOT while in contact with a field element or border". It doesn't say it has to be something rigid; spider legs are certainly field elements. The reason that pinning was not called against the ramp last year was because the ramp was considered part of the floor, not a field element. That may not have been clear in the initial rules, but it was cleared up mid-year and I believe it was called consistently across regionals.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

this may be a small amount off topic, but as i have never seen said snapping of aluminum, i was wondering if 1114 has some pictures of the snapped arm. I would like to see what said breaking looks like.


I just hope that this all gets worked out for the best, although it seems less than possible at this point.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Ok I don't normaly post, but I beleive this thread warrents a post. I'll state right now I am not taking sides, I'm actualy not going to say anything about what calls were made, or what people 'should have done'. I'm just going to try and put some things in perspective.

Ok for those of you who don't know me (or at least don't know me by name) I have been (for the past two years) the Lead Team Queuer of the the GTR and the Waterloo regional, so in this capacity I have had a chance to talk to pretty much every drive team of every team who has competed at those two regionals. I was also on my own teams' Drive team for 3 years, so I also know the exitement and adrenaline of the action on the feild.

Ok now to the two points that I wanted to talk about.

Firstly since I wasn't there and have only watched the match once I do not think it fair for me to make any claims as such. What I realy want to talk about is the excitment of the moment, I know from my years driving the robot that during the competition you are very very excited. Some things you do in this state you may regret latter on. Also that in this state you are more then likley to become excited when there is a sudden advantage you have gained. I know from personal experience from driving the robot that during matches I've become excited at times, that in hindsight I beleive I should not have for various reasons. I don't beleive that in times like these that most people (not all but most) could do things that wouldn't be in character. I beleive that the way that things are handeled after the situation are more important, and the feelings of regret are sometimes almost punishment enough.

Secondly everyone seems to be going on hard about the refing. You have to remember that there are only a limited number of referees watching any one given feild, and that all the referees are volunteers. I know personaly from volunteering that at everymoment I try my best to make sure everything happens the way it should be and try my best to do the job assigned for me. I am sure that it is the same for all of the other volunteers in FIRST. This being said what more would you want to have seen done?

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Sometimes the referee's did not even know when a RINGER/KEEPER was SCORED. It is hard for them to make even complex calls like those. I am sorry for what happen to 1114. Hopefully FIRST will resolve their issues and make some changes next season.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

A few points I would like to make;

Do not argue what something "should" be, or what you would have done to win; The rules are the rules, and they are pretty literal in this sense.

Do not say that 1114 should have made their arm stronger. I am willing to bet money that 1114's arm is more robust than 90% of the other teams out there (the only one that is definitely more robust in my mind is 330, but that's because I have a lot of experience with them. I'm sure there are others as well).

The facts are that it looks pretty much like 48 tried to break 1114. I have a hard time believing this in FIRST, especially from a veteran and high caliber team, but I saw with my own eyes what happened. At first, I though I must be crazy; but when well respected members of the FIRST community (Karthik, Jay, etc...) claim to have seen the exact same thing, it is hard to think otherwise.

I would like to hear what the coach and drivers for 48 have to say about this.

They either were playing with the intent to break 1114, or were playing extremely rough with no regards to the consequences.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

People who have talked about the reffing have missed a subtle point about the use of red/yellow cards. IMHO the problem was not so much that 48 did not receive a red card in SF1-3, but that it and a couple of other teams had not received yellows for rough play earlier in qualifying that would have toned down the rough play the way good refs do in soccer. 48's qualifying rounds were rough enough that when I saw 48 get picked I was pretty sure robots would be broken in eliminations, though I didn't expect anything as dramatic as what happened. If the red/yellow card system is used again next year FIRST should encourage refs to use the yellow card a lot more often and prepare them to listen to the ensuing whining from coaches/players.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

The force and aggression 48 exerted was extremely great to cause the joint break and rack shift. I feel the rack movement is a combination of 1114's robust (yes, I said robust) design and a "greasier" rack that seemed increasingly easier to move as the regional weeks moved on. This is the action and accompanying sound that sickened me when I first saw it happen. After watching the video in more detail, however, 1114's action of backing up following the break did a substantial amount of the separating and final amputation. It appears once they realized their arm was broken, they did what was necessary to extract themselves from the ringer to go continue to be productive on the other side of the field. I would expect nothing less from such fierce competitors. I think the act of 1114 helping to sever their own arm is important to note, considering everyone is attaching the "vicious" appearance of the entire process solely to 48's robot.

Also, a few other observations having studied the video, purely from the DRIVER'S point of view.

• The middle spider was almost full at the time this happened, so visibility was limited, especially for a kid who's really not that tall.
• If you look, the difference in position between the "I have a ringer and I want to score on the middle spider" arm position and the "I'm being pushed into the middle spider by a defender" arm position isn't all that significant, and much of the arm is obscured by ringers already scored at the height of the middle spider level.
• The announcer didn't indicate he was aware of the broken arm until 1114 started ripping away from the part still attached to the spider leg. His attention may have been diverted elsewhere for a few moments, but his vantagepoint was unquestionably better than our driver's. If he didn't notice this until later, is it out of the question to believe our driver couldn't tell the arm was broken?
• Finally, I can never really tell if the blue ringer was ever officially scored per the rules. At the end, when 1114's arm was dangling off of it, the ringer was perched on top of the "stinger". Does this count as being scored? I really don't know - we aren't in the business of scoring ringers (save for an attempt to score a keeper in auton on Thursday).

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Anyone who has watched basketball games where the referees "let the players play" by not blowing the whistle on minor contact will attest that the level of aggressiveness will increase dramatically. In some cases, the games will get out of control as players retaliate for the previous "non-foul" contact. For the referees, once a potential foul is ignored, the next one is harder to call.

This sort of behavior isn't restricted to sports: the space shuttle disasters (Challenger and Columbia) had early warning signs (blow-by of solid booster o-rings and debris falling from the external tank). These anomalies were noted in the program, but were considered not quite bad enough to stop the launches. This effect wasn't fully appreciated until the disasters occurred. It's human nature to build tolerance to risky behavior until something catastrophic occurs. Only then do people see the trend and wonder why it wasn't caught earlier...

We build robots, but we control them with humans. Mistakes will happen.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

The relevant infrastructure here is composed of amateurs. They're volunteers. To provide a consistently professional infrastructure would require professionally-paid workers, professional-quality training, and ongoing professionally-supervised evaluations. I doubt increasing the fees paid by teams to cover these costs would go over well.

As FIRST grows, teams are increasingly demanding better service. Can't it instead be that the teams can increasingly provide what they want FIRST to have? With more teams and more involvement, there ought to be a correspondingly higher pool of enthusiastic and capable volunteers.

A challenge to those of you grumbling about the refereeing this year: Be a referee next year. If you don't take some responsibility for improving the situation, try not to be upset if it doesn't change to your liking.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I'd like to be a referee. Unfortunately, all of the events in my area aren't very fond of college folks having ref spots. Or maybe its just me.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I was on Galileo's field when this happened and a mentor came over and said that 1114's arm was destroyed. I thought to myself that i was thinking this would happen this year. In GLR i remember thinking to myself that their arm is out in the open and could easily be damaged if they were to get played defense on. Our arm also got badly damaged in the Finals on Galileo, but thats no ones fault. My feelings on this is that things happen and there should be no hard feelings towards anyone next year. 48 is known for their defense and i would not want them to go easy on 1114 (especially because they can put up ringers like crazy).

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Ok I think we need get off of the topic of 48 breaking 1114s arm. I am not going to say what my opinion is on it, i think that it is not needed for this thread, and if you really want to know it pm me and i will tell you. But the main thing that should be addressed here is why the ringer was not scored. The ringer with 1114s completly broken off arm still attached to it. I would like to know why it was scored as it was. I dont know if it is in the rules that says that the arm, that is completly off of the robot, is still apart of it, but from what i hear, the arm is apart of the feild now and therefore apart of the ringer. meaning that the ringer should have been scored. i dont know if it would have made a difference in the match, but i think that someone needs to look in to it. i cant right now because i am ogoing to be having breakfast with my grandparents...we are having eggs bacon and toast...it should be yummy..im excited...haha

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I can certainly understand the frustration and dissappointment. The video does not support your arguement. And, your assertion that Delphi Elite played with the intent to break 1114 is not consistent with my experience with Team 48 in both Pittsburgh and Cleveland. In Pittsburgh, we ran against them in a Qualifying Match and with them in the Elimination Rounds. In Cleveland, we ran with them in a Qualifying Match and against them in the Finals. In all cases they played defense hard and within the rules.

This is a game, and only a game. It is a wonderful opportunity to learn lessons that will help us grow and improve - in life. There are some great lessons here; find them and apply them.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Alright ill give my two sense. I am the operator for 1523. AS the other team started pinning 1114 we were screaming 1 2 3 4 5 all the way until 13 or 14 of them pinning 1114. The arm did eventually snap and no penalty was given except one 10pt for pinning. At the beggining of the round in Auton i am almost positive more then 50% of the ringer was on the spyder leg. Yet the judge "elboed it off". Stuff happened that match that is in the past and it was a fun experience. Improvements can be made though.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I fully agree with this observation - claiming a "fact" that another team wanted to damage your robot based on their subsequent celebration is inappropriate and incorrect.

At UCF regional we had our arm ripped off by another robot (Barry Bonzack's team). Ours was definitely not robust enough, but it was repaired in time for the next match. Although I didn't watch them, I would imagine that Barry's team was excited and probably cheered when it happened because it is pretty cool to see, even though our field team was probably sick about it at the time because of the time they had put into the robot. I started laughing when I saw it from the stands (although I didn't design the joint I designed the arm) because it made for great drama, but I then ran down to get repairs started. Barry and crew came up afterward to see what they could do, and they gave us pneumatic tubing we needed for the repair.

I've been in the same boat before. S.P.A.M has NEVER had a strategy aimed at damaging another robot, but it has happened due to the rigors of competition. Having a strong drive train means you play strong defense so it is bound to happen.

Don't read intentions into initial reactions.

Hmmmm..... I must have missed that one in the rule book. Can you point me toward it?

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

In order to be HANGING, the ring must be fully supported by the spider leg, not by the spider foot and/or robot. The referee (not judge!) was 100% correct in removing the keeper. READ THE RULES!!!

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

You dont need to get mad about it "READ THE RULES" trust me ive read them more then once. You were not in the position that all of us were in. We should of had a re-match yet we could not. Yet when 330 played in the finals and their arm broke off they got a re-match. That is what disapoints us most!!!

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Like i said overall the oposing alliance was an excellent alliance

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Well, I don't know exactly where you've been trying to referee, but I'm a Sophomore in college and I this year I refereed at 2 regionals (Pittsburgh and NYC) as well as at the Championship Event.

In my opinion, in response to people questioning the referees consistancy, the referees spent most of Thursday at the Championship discussing the rules and the minor details of the game. The head referees spent even longer discussing each and every rule. The referees in this competition are not oblivious to the controversies the come up within the game.

Now, on being informed of the rules. What you think may be inconsistancies with calls, may just be you just not knowing the rules of the game well enough. Besides the referee meeting, there was the drivers meeting at the championship, where the referees and the drivers discussed certain rules and how the calls were going to be made at the event. The drivers meeting answered all the questions that the drivers from the teams in all the divisions had. Unless you were at that entire drivers meeting, I don't think you have a fair say in how a play should have been called. I don't know what makes some of you think that you can trash the referees, maybe its because you think that unlike teams, they don't read CD.. but they do, and maybe you should be a little more careful about what you say about the referees.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

While I wasn't involved - I did want to point something out. I watched that video - perhaps with a slightly different viewpoint than many people.

The referees went into the match had no special warning of where to watch. They had no advance notice that something major and very controversial might occur. As such, you and I are far, far more prepared to try to evaluate what happened. Especially since we have a very small section of the field to watch - we are watching a single robot for the whole match. That is the beauty of hindsight. We also have the wonderful ability of instant replay. How many of you simply watched that video once and drew your opinions from that? Because that ALL the referees had to go from - and worse, they were watching the whole field. Not 10 square feet of it.

So I watched it once. And only once. Here is what I saw.

1114 grabbed a ringer and then went to score while being defended. The other robot (48) was trying to push them around. At several points I, with my referee hat on, became concerned that the pinning was going on too long. In each instance, I saw 48 back away from 1114. Instead of turning, or any other type of maneuver, 1114 backed up with them. Were they off for three seconds? Hard to say, in my "only watched the video once" eye. I didn't have a stopwatch going. As I doubt the refs did. I DO know that 1114 was continually trying score.

But I DID see 48 back off - several times. Whether they did so for 1.5 seconds or 4.5 seconds is truly in the eye of the beholder. During the actual match, I'm sure 1114 was screaming they'd been pinned (their team member near the camera was screaming pin well before 10 seconds were up) while I'm sure team 48 was counting a little more slowly...1....2.....3.... I see several people saying 1114 was pinned the whole time. No they weren't. They continued contact with 48 when 48 backed off. That is not 48's fault, and does not constitute a continuing pin count.

It's the nature of competition. Team 1114's arm was broken. At the point where it was broken, 48 and 1114 were still moving forward. As such, it's very difficult for a ref to say they were pinned - you'd have to realise the entire situation of their arm being stuck. I know I had trouble seeing it. Did 48 know it was going to break as they pushed 1114? I sincerely, sincerely, doubt it. I see quite a few people here drawing judgements from their emotions rather than rationality.

I saw a hard fought match, which upon replay presented some questionable acts. In the heat of the moment, without replay or hindsite, and with the whole field to look at, I suspect I would have made the exact same decisions as the referees.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

A lot has been said about the refereeing here.

I'd like to say a few things because I do not believe this thread has been very fair to the refs.

Refereeing is a very difficult and thankless job. No matter what you call, there will be those that disagree with your call (sometimes vehemently). Referees are human, and sometimes miss a call or make a call in error, this is a fact of life and we (as players, people, and teams) have to accept those calls (just consider it another lesson learned from FIRST). In many of the calls, the referee has to make a judgement call as to the intent of the action (did they mean to break the arm? was that ram intentional? etc). This is especially difficult in the heat of competition. I truely believe that the referees do a great job in FIRST, and if they make the wrong call once in a while ... well, it just proves that they are human.

There will always be bad calls. There will always be different interpretations of the rules. There will always be the human factor. And I'll challange anyone who believes they can do a better job of refereeing to volunteer next year.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Then who should take responsibility of all the bad calls in a game? FIRST for not training them well-enough? GDC for creating the rules? I do agree the being a referee is a hard job and I am thankful to all those who volunteered for it. However, the game is the only fair chance for all teams at an event to compete. I can understand a few mistakes in a game but when they miss something obvious repeatedly and call it differently from regional-to-regional and division-to-division, I think someone has to take responsibility. To me being a referee is a huge responsibility and a huge honor. With great power comes great responsibility.

I usually do not like posting these things because CD doesnt take criticism too well. However, I hope next year is a better year.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I have reffed before. it was at an offseason event, but most teams take offseason events just as serious as onseason events, but thats besides the point. Each ref is suposed to watch one part of the field that thats it. it is thier responsibility to make sure that the area they are watching is in accordance to the rules. from what i understand, the ref that was there didnt know the rules every well. I see that as a problem. at a regional, we have well qualified refs, refs that know the rules very well and call the matches in accordence to the rules. but why is that different at the championship. from what i hear, there was a alot of refs that were first time volunteers. i think that is an issue that needs to be adressed. in the superbowl, you have to be a proven ref to ref, some on that is seasoned and knows the game very well. in FIRST, that is not true. we can have any joe schmoe ref, i think that that is not fair to the compitition.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Please understand, I was shouting, but I wasn't angry. The issue about the autonomous keeper needs to be dropped - please look at Post #82.

As far as the re-match in the finals, 330's arm did not get broken off in that match, there was a "field fault", perhaps related to scoring (I've not heard a clear explanation). Having a robot's arm break off is not a reason for a re-match, it may be a reason to expect a DQ, but that is a referee's judgment call. The head ref has to decide that the action was strategically aimed solely at causing damage to the robot. Without any knowledge of a "history" between Teams 48 and 1114, the head ref may not be looking for this sort of behavior (which I believe is what Tom Line is saying in his post).

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

From the 'tone' of your response, I don't believe you are looking for responsibility, but instead someone to blame.

We should not 'Bash' the refs for any bad calls, but instead talk to them (calmly amd politely) when the match is over, letting them know our point of view. Bashing them here on CD is poor form.

To relate this to professional baseball, Different umpires will call different strike zones. A pitcher has to adjust his game to the different strike zone even though the rules are explicit as to what a strike zone is.

Lets not play the 'blame' game. Lets congratulate the referees for all the calls that they got correct, because it is that difficult to be a referee.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

First off, what Tom said is right. In our areas (Boston/NJ/UTC/as well as many others), it is all about giving back to the sponsors and who you know. For the most part, they just laugh, and toss the college kids off to the sides. Boston has been the best though, and allowing some of the younger kids more access to privileged areas. Wayne Penn was a fantastic volunteer coordinator, and much can be said about him. The Regionals you attended have a very small volunteer base, and can do things for college kids.
I must agree with Bharat on this one too. When you have almost the whole entire community complaining about inconsistency, something is wrong. I read the rules 3 times over, I'm a 3 year driver, don't tell me I don't know the rules. I have every right to share my displeasure with all. No one has to do anything about it, that is their right too. I plan on speaking very loudly about poor refereeing. It has been getting progressively worse each year, this year was one of the worst I've seen.
We're the consumer, and very unhappy with the product, why shouldn't we speak up?
Note--I posted a thread in the Modded forum to continue discussion about what we think needs to be improved in FIRST, but they have yet to allow it..

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

A point to consider:

NFL referees are paid professionals. They have rules that don't change from year to year. Many of them are veterans with decades of experience. They have the wonderful benefit of instant replay. And yet, despite all of this, there's still almost always atleast one bad call in a game. From someone's point of view.

I believe that most of the FRC refs do take their jobs seriously, do take responsibility for their calls, and do come as close as humanly possible to being as perfect as some people seem to think they should be. Mostly, I think people should step back and consider whether they really should be expecting MORE bad calls than there are.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I think I've heard Dean state more than once "life isn't always fair". FIRST isn't exempt from this statement. It's very hard to accept that fact. We need to accept that there will be errors in judgment. It's a different matter if there are clear biases being shown by referees. FIRST deals with this by virtue of a "Conflict of Interest" form that is signed by referees and even robot inspectors. If anyone believes a referee is biased (intentially making calls in favor or against any teams), that needs to be addressed to FIRST - privately, not here in CD.

We live in a world where distrust has made life more difficult than it needs to be. Hence the need for so many laws, so many pages in a contract and so many people needed to protect our interests (lawyers, judges, police, etc.). I'd like to think that within the FIRST community, a higher level of trust exists than in the rest of the world. For the most part, that's been my experience and that's why I believe in FIRST.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I sort of figured somebody else would jump on this, but can someone please explain why the pinned robot backing up with the pinning robot means the pinning count should stop? Of course 1114 backed up with 48 - our driver was undoubtedly pushing back against them trying to get out, so when they backed off we did too. Nowhere in the rules, or in any Q&A that I'm aware of, does it say that the motion of the pinned robot has anything to do with the pinning call. As I interpret it, once pinning starts, to stop the count the pinning robot must back up 3 feet away from the pinning position, stay there for 3 seconds, and can then move back, regardless of where the pinned robot moves during that time.

Sorry, Travis, but I think you're really stretching it here - the arm was snapped off and completely useless by the time 1114 started moving.

I don't think I can agree that the driver couldn't see well enough to tell what was happening, especially given that Jay Trzaskos has mentioned that he clearly saw the arm snap while standing behind the 48 driver station. And I think we all know that announcers are very often watching a different part of the field (pinning is usually pretty boring to watch), so I don't think the delay in announcing proves anything.

To me, there are two key points. First is the celebration in the driver's station which, even in the heat of the moment, I think is completely unacceptable. I didn't see it myself, but I have been told about it from too many independent, reliable sources to discount it. Second is one that hasn't been pointed out - in the video, it is quite clear in the 2-3 seconds before the arm breaking that it is bending back significantly, so there was ample opportunity to realize what was going to happen. I'm not ready to say the entire incident was premeditated, but there certainly wasn't any particular effort to avoid it, and it would have been easy to (near the end, the 1114 robot was clearly pinned, and in no position to score, so 48 could quite safely have stopped pushing).

I'm less annoyed at the referees; I may disagree with how things were called, but at least in the case of pinning I can see there being confusion about the rule (since it was changed at the drivers' meeting) and aggressive play is ultimately a judgment call anyways. However, I think the situation could have used some judicious penalties, e.g. a 10 point pinning penalty and a 10 point aggressive play penalty, or two 10 point pinning penalties, either of which would have conveniently brought the score to 10-10 and allowed for a rematch. As has been pointed out, not scoring the keeper was the right call, and unless the ringer with the arm was jostled off the stinger onto the leg, not scoring it was the right call as well (although I was told that the head ref said it wasn't scored because the arm was attached - perhaps there was some sort of miscommunication).

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

First of all congratulations to team 1114 for another great year, and all the teams on both the alliances. Let us keep the discussion down to facts without our own perceptions and emotions involved.

I was not at the Championships but I have personally seen 1114's bot at GTR and it was one of the best and most robust bots there. This has been their tradition since they started FIRST, as 1219 is not far from them in the pits. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to doubt their engineering or robustness.

I think the biggest question in this situation is not about whether the calls should have been different or whether the pinning was illegal. These things are too objective to debate about; they are in the past now. As teams in FIRST we realize that things happen and the show must go on.

However, reading this thread I have read 3-4 reports of a single person or a group of people witnessing celebration from the team in question (48) after this unfortunate event. As a historian if you were to write about this event, those eyewitnesses will weigh heavily in your decision. I personally think that this hurts team 1114 greatly because such a matter should not be celebrated upon and it shatters the great image of FIRST held in our hearts. I am not going to make a judgment as to if the celebration was because of the arm and I would assume and hope that there is a better explanation. But I would definitely want to hear this explanation.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Yes, referees are volunteers. Yes, they are doing their best.

But clearly their best is not good enough. Maybe that isn't their fault. Maybe FIRST is not training them well enough. Maybe a lot of different things are contributing to the problem.

Bashing the referees is not ok. But overall this year has had the all around worst officiating I've seen in my 7 years in FRC. Some of it has been inconsistincies in the rules. Some of it has been flat out not knowing the rules. Some of it has been referees just not paying attention.

I've been a referee. I refereed three events in 05 (by far the hardest year to ref). I understand that everyone is human and makes mistakes. In fact, I was part of the ref crew at SVR that was involved in one of the biggest controversies of the year. I'd like to think I have some basis for understanding the difficulty of the job of the referee.

FIRST should at the very least address the consistency of the head refereeing. There is no way they will ever be able to field ref crews at every regional that are composed of multi year FIRST participants who have a very good idea of what kind of contact is acceptable and what is not. However, they absolutely must have a head ref who is on the same page as all the other head refs, and they must have the proper training to be able to train their other referees.

If this means that FIRST needs to train and pay 10-20 head referees to attend every event during the season, then that is what needs to be done. Teams are paying far too much money to show up at an event and then find out the rules will be called very differently from the way they were written, because the referees are interpreting them differently.

And as much as the referees do give up their time to come volunteer let's face it--some of them should not be refereeing. Some have never even seen the rulebook until they show up at the event. Some still don't know the rulebook completely even after the event. Perhaps there should be some sort of rules quiz given to the referees at each event to ensure that they at the very least understand all the basic rules like: when you can touch the controls after auton, when you receive penalties for home zone violations, etc.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Pinning is parenthetically defined by <G39> as "inhibit[ing] the movement of another ROBOT while in contact with a field element or border". As soon as the victim moves away from the field element, it is no longer being pinned.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

We're not just consumers. We're active participants. We don't just receive services. We perform services. We can't just complain that FIRST needs to improve. We are FIRST.

We shouldn't just speak up. We should take part. We need to make the changes.

The problem seems to be that some of the refs are having problems fulfilling the task given to them. Unless you can find funding to train and maintain a professional corps of FIRST referees, I think the best way to help is to inspire enthusiastic and capable volunteers to step forward. Complaining that the refs are [insert derogatory or insulting adjective here] certainly won't make others want to take on the job.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

It isn't just complaining that we are doing here. We are trying to see what is wrong and tryign to make everyone aware of what we think needs to be improved. To me, it seems like we have attempted to take part a few times this year, and haven't been responded to very well. In some cases though (algorithm), it wasn't all of the parent company's fault.
It really would not be that hard to train a core group of refs on how to call the game. You can just make a quick video reel of examples of what everything is. There should be more of a requirement to ref, rather than just selecting someone who is high up in a company and you want it to look good. I know many people that could have done a better job this weekend, and would have loved to.

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.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Honestly, these referees especially at the Championship are not just people they find last minute roaming th Georgia Dome. I consider myself pretty active within FIRST, and in the referee meeting Thursday afternoon I pretty much felt out of place without a 5 or 10 year volunteer pin on my shirt. As stated before, there were at least 11 regional head referees on the floor of the Dome distributed on each of the fields. The referees watch and analyze every single match of each event they attend. With a lot of the referees at the championship officiating at more than regional, by the time they get to the Georgia Dome, I think it makes them pretty well qualified. I think a lot of people are thinking of the referees in the wrong light. They make up part of the FIRST community just as the students, and the mentors and everyone else does.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

The thing about saying there were 11 Head Refs on the floor of the Georgia dome is basically a moot point. Saying they head-reffed means very little to me. There were numerous regionals that were complained about this year for poor reffing, changing the rules, etc.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I take great exception to this statement. I don’t recall any controversial rulings on Archimedes.


Refs are human, they will make mistakes. Highly paid professional sport refs make mistakes. It’s part of the game.

We can’t even come to a consensus on whether or not a team should be penalized for rough play in this thread and we have the benefit of being to watch the video, how are the refs on the field supposed to decide?


I think it’s time to lock up this one.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Controversial Ruling: The Refs declaring a member of an alliance was not broken, when they should have no say in the matter.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

The original score posted was 40-10. A 10-point penalty was later assessed to the red alliance for pinning, final score: 30-10. No penalty was assessed to the blue alliance.

Everyone would like a more complete explanation of penalties and rulings regarding scoring. Keep in mind that FIRST is under considerable time pressure to get the matches completed. The championship event this year ran more than a hour past the scheduled time.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

How to solve this refereeing issue.....

1. KEEP ALL THE CAMERA'S ACTIVE, all the camera's NASA and FIRST use must be kept recorded, therefore, something like this can be replayed to the referees and/or the crowd via the big screen. This will allow the referees a replay of the match from a different angle

2. OPT FOR CAMERAS ON ROBOTS, give teams the option to add cameras to their robot (1523 did this at the Florida Regional in 2005 and it looked pretty cool). give the referees and the FIRST community full access to these cameras, this will ensure that there is no ramming ABOVE the bumper zone

3. HIRE THE REFEREE'S, get someone who is not familiar to the game, who won't play favorites, who has refereed something else before like football or basketball. (basketball being the better, due to the active amount of game play.) therefore the refs are eliminated from the blame, if the refs are paid it will only bump registration up a maximum amount of say $100, that $100 from each team = $4000 per referee team consisting of 8 refs, 4 refs at the corners, a head ref, a clock operator, a red alliance ref, and a blue alliance ref. Now the referees will not be afraid of throwing out the yellow card or red card

4. CREATE A CHALLENGE SYSTEM, allow teams a form to challenge the refs, like in football, with the things stated above, this would be a affordable way to make sure problems like what happened last Saturday won't happen again, remember, 1114 had to complain to get that 10 point penalty. but a system needs to be set up, ie: teams can challenge to get a penelty but not for removing one, an item on the feild, like a removed ringer etc.

__________ Other Items

karthik, thanks for updating us on the situation, I would still love to hear from someone on the field from Team 48 though, i think that would give a lot of us the answers that we want.


Saying that 1114 are the good guys and 48 are the bad guys is a ridiculous statement. Some of us watch sports, lets say Peyton Manning is playing in the Super bowl and Brian Urlacker takes out Peyton's knees while tackling him as he is throwing the ball downfallen to a wide open Marvin Harrison, note, the game is in Overtime. Are you making a game saving tackle, or taking out a talented player from ever playing to his former level???

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I was not on the other fields to see the lack of rule enforcement others have talked about, but I was on Archimedes, and it was just as stunning.

In the semi finals one robot used it's arm to hit/push another robot up high, on it's side, above/out of the bumper zone and tip them over. The robot that tipped the other was not holding a tube, was not attempting to get one, and was not interacting with the rack - there was only one possible reason for the manuever they used and only one possible result, which happened. It was such an obvious DQ, that most around the field watched the rest of the match not really into the last 1:30 because they knew the match was going to have a DQ for the tip. To the shock of most everyone, no DQ was called and it determined who went to the finals.

The DQ called on Einstein for tipping was nowhere near as obvious or intentional as the non call on Archimedes. It's one thing not to call an obvious DQ, but an entirely different thing to then call a DQ for something not nearly as flagrant.

One thing to point out - a "no call" on an obvious rule violation and DQ has just as much impact on the outcome of a match as calling a penalty or a DQ - just that the alliance who didn't violate any rules is the one punished instead of a the other way around.

And as the previous post mentioned, if an alliance had a robot whose ramps had a problem and weren't working correctly and wanted to bring in the next highest seeded robot, as the rules state, and a referee doesn't allow it - then that is another instance where the refs were not following the rule book and were determining the outcome of the event. Very unfortunate. Also unfortunate for the next highest ranked team in Archimedes who should have been allowed to experience and play in the playoffs, but did not get to because a referee didn't follow the rules and ovestepped their role/responsibility.

So yes, the outcomes of matches on the Archimedes field were changed and impacted by refs not enforcing the rules just like appears to have happened on other fields. Very unfortunate for all the teams and the event in general.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

1 and 4 would waste too much time. 2 and 3 would be too costly.
It doesn't need to be that difficult. You just need a precise ten minute video for demonstrations. A phone conference like they have had, is not the answer.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Actually, the 10 point penalty was assessed for something like "not playing in the spirit of the game". I know. I was there and heard it and was wondering what that meant.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

If your saying what i think your saying, then you can throw out Waterloo Quarter-Final 2.4 in which the ref's replayed the match off a camera and counted the points, ask karthik about this, i want to hear what he has to say about this

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

It has normally been in the rules that refs will not watch video of a match. And if they didn't keep track of the score correctly, maybe they shouldn't be refs at all.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I would like to take a different approach to this whole argument. First off, 1114's arm was not the first arm to be tore off this year. Our team's( 71 ) arm was tore off in MWR during eliminations( no call )--and there was much rejoicing. Did we like it? No. But we accepted it as part of the game. Of course, we took the opportunity to reinforce the broken area.

The question being asked right now is the wrong question. We should not ask,"Did 48 try to purposely break 1114's arm and did they intentionally pin for more than 10 seconds?" but we should ask, "How much defense should we allow in FIRST and under what conditions?". FIRST has run the whole gambit of human emotion from 2001 with no defense to 2002 and 2003, which was all out war. A game like 2001, which we at Team Hammond liked a lot, was chastised as "too boring", or "Darn--my failed offensive design couldn't be morphed into a beater to be competitive". After 2003, the game of denial, in which wonderful machines like 67 were never allowed to do their thing, FIRST started to change the rules to allow "vigorous intereaction", but protect offensive machines from annihiliation. The rules have been tightened as we went to no tipping, no wedge bots, no ramming,no high hitting, to the yellow/red card system, but still allow "vigorous interaction". As long as we allow "vigorous interaction", we will be subject to human interpretation. And as long as this human element remains, these discussions will continue.

In conclusion, I feel for 1114's tough break, but if a bad call/no call was made, that's the game. The only way to end these human element disputes is the "nuclear option" --no defense.

Sincerely,

Brian Beatty

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

That Waterloo match was an exception, IMO. At most every other point where a video review was requested, it was denied because the rules state that video will not be reviewed by referees.

I like the idea of a challenge system (the difference being that a challenger receives the penalty/card/DQ if they are found to be wrong, beyond a reasonable doubt) to allow the official review of video, or some other form of strong supporting evidence.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

guys (and gals), we can go through this all through the offseason. the point is that the outcome of the match is not going to be changed. there have been an exorbanent amount of times this year that very tough defense was played on us. should it have been called that we ended up tangled in the rack? maybe. but we knew that nothing would be changed.

from experience, i agree with someone earlier in the thread that through the rack, it is very hard to see wat the crap is going on. because in the one match that i was on the drive team, we went against 330, and was told to play defence wherever they went. then 535 pins us against the wall for a time that also could be questionable. during this match, we almost tipped 330 over. this would've been unintentional, but say that we tip 330, would they have counted that as intentional tipping? i dont know. but stories could be told just by me for a long while. matches won't get thrown out, scores won't be changed. the head ref's calls are final weather we agree with them or not.

my $0.02

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

//starting to stray
As was the case for 125's first qualifying match. Brandon Martus can attest: as he was the IFI official for Archimedes. We ran with 768 who was taking match video. In some odd manner our radio signals became 'mixed' in some way. Sometimes we would have control of their bot or a portion of ours, or both of the drive bases. It was an odd cenario that I thought could never happen. The 768 video showed their drive team talking to Brandon behind the glass while no one was near the control board, yet their robot made an appearance across the screen which was not due to uncentered sticks.
Once I saw the video I told the members of 125 and 768 going to present it: "Do not expect them to even look at it, and if they do, do not expect a rematch... that isn't how FIRST works it will purely be proof of the event."
The video was shown just for future knowledge of the incedent. Brandon, if you could shed some light on the subject that would be awesome. I never talked to any official personally, I got the info from word of mouth.

Proof of Corey's point

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.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Perhaps, since the game planners (I believe 7 of them) take very seriously game design as well as many scenarios that may happen once THE game is designed, more careful consideration needs to be place on "proper" defense.
The nature and design of the game will greatly determine what kind of defense can/will be played. Maybe that should be looked at it greater detail.
It can be frustrating for teams when many of them with their communities pour their heart and soul into this program, only to be frustrated by outcomes that are unfortunate.
I also believe that more training for referees to be consistent IS necessary. Look at how much teams sacrifice and cough up just to enter a FIRST competition. For all the money that is spent, I would think that FIRST owes it to the program to look at each issue that comes up carefully and make announcements to changes/improvements that they will at least look into.
It is vital to teams staying in the program and feeling like they all matter in the outcomes and adjustments to future competitions.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

For the 2007 season, we used standard off the shelf Andy-Mark servo shifters with the same Brecoflex Supergrip Blue treads many teams have used in past seasons. I do not feel there was anything excessive or special about our drivetrain design. Many teams possess this kind of drivetrain ability - we just let ours push too hard one time too much, and an arm was horribly broken, yet it was still repaired in 15 minutes. We may very well have caused other teams damage during the 2007 season due to our aggressive defense, but none of it was apparent to us. If this ever happened, I encourage teams to even now PM me and let me know about it if we caused you undue mechanical problems, as we can't learn from our mistakes if we never know we made any. Other accidents happened that were caused by other teams throughout the year - but perhaps none so visceral occurred on such a visible stage? Again, mistakes happen, and sometimes someone does something dumb and incredibly foolish during the course of making that mistake. We apologize for those mistakes and we hopefully move on.

We did realize there was such a thing as too much oomph and overkill when we designed and builit the custom three-motor shifters and didn't have enough weight to complete the offensive part of our robot - the ramps. We designed the robot to easily climb other ramps, deploy (eventually) effective 2 @ 12 ramps, and play effective defense. I do not feel we overfocused on a single aspect of the game, and our weight budget was ultimately distributed appropriately enough.

I would encourage rookie teams of limited means to use a defensive base as a start, but not make that base the sole design objective for their build season. I do agree that we should raise the bar and ask them to tackle multiple game objectives if it's within their means to do so. But to some teams, just getting the robot to run around and be mobile is success and inspiration enough for them to continue in the program.

But back to one of the main points that keeps this on topic with the discussion, I do believe some kind of FIRST- or team-produced defensive tutorial would help everyone understand what constitutes proper driving and robot interactions and what is typically not allowed. If FIRST constructed the video's development much like the safety animation contest with a list of required criteria to cover, not only would they save on production costs, but perhaps many teams who participated in the contest would learn about safe defense before the build season even got under way? Like Adam mentioned, refs don't even know what to define as ramming. Wouldn't a visual demonstration involving 2 robots, staged according to FIRST's official direction, help refs and participants alike to understand the true definition? Everyone also calls for simpler rules. Well a picture (actually, 30 pictures a second or what have you) is worth a thousand words.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

The refs replayed the cameras because both alliance captain representative agreed on it and i dont regret our team agreeing because the opposing alliance had beat us fairly. That was a good call and i appreciated that the refs took the time to sort it out or else it had potential for a big discussion that was already in the past.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

No, I am saying that mistakes and bad rulings were not a result of lack of experience. Rather, it is because as others have suggested, the rules are too complex. In addition, there are interpretations passed down from on high which can result in the refs seeming inconsistent from regional to regional, and from field to field at the Championships.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

As I have just spend about an hour reading mostly repeated information about who did what to who and how, along with various comments about referees, rules, FIRST in general and so on and so on,

and the fact that team 1114, quoted above, says "this matter is at rest",

and the expectation that nothing new can / will be added to this debate,

and all that will happen is more people will get upset with more other people


I request that another moderator please close this thread.

"honey, turn the oven off because this cake is done...." :)

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

To allow for others to have their final say, I will close this thread at about 11:30 tonight. I also believe that there is a circular thought in this thread with not too much different being added. If people feel that on going discussion is necessary I will recommend a moderated thread where we don't have to monitor all day.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

[quote=4throck;618954]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.

QUOTE]

Let me start by saying that we did not intentionally try to tip 71. That is not how we played during the matches at Curie, Buckeye, or Florida. Sorry for tipping you guys over. I would really like to find video of exactly how it happened. It definitely took away a match that could have had another great finish like in the second match...you broke our hearts!

I respect the refs decisions, but sometimes there are occasions where mistakes are made. Some can seriously hurt an alliance, others may hurt a teams reputation, but we have to respect them.

Last year at a regional, the previous match score was posted for ours. We protested and the refs claimed it was the right score. When asked to see the sheets that they wrote the scores down on, they could not find them. Later, one of our sponsors told us that they realized their mistake later and that the sheet was never lost. It puts a sour taste in your mouth, but we continued on the best we could.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

There were incidents of questionable nature on all four fields during the elimination rounds, 2 of which directly affected champions. The most egregious of which happened in this incident on Curie and on Archimedes. While I have not yet been able to find video (or get it from teammates) of the incidents on Galileo or Newton, but I will post video of 254 being tipped on Archimedes (no call). To make matters even more interesting, both this and the 1114 incident happened within 4:49 of each other (actually much less, closer to :45), as the same song is playing in the background (Message in a Bottle by The Police). It is quite possible that the Galileo and Newton incidents also occurred during the same time frame.

http://www.youtube.com/v/Z2XmhRZmMsM
[video coming soon, being approved by Youtube]

Most importantly though, we must not forget that what actually happens on the field is not what is important. Rich Kressley said it very eloquently in this thread:
http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...threadid=56958

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I would like to thank all who kept in check. This has been an emotional thread and I know feelings were riding high. Let's all get on board and read this tread: http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...threadid=56958 by Rich K

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Just opened to clear up a very important point. It has been stated that at the Waterloo Regional that the Refs consulted a video of the match to clarify. I was unaware of this. When I returned from a few days away I had recieved a PM confirming my belief.

The Refs at Waterloo did NOT review any video during the event or playoffs.