Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

For those of you who are curious, and I know many of you are, here's a link to footage of Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, in which 1114, 469 and 1523 are eliminated.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...23692796016767

Notice that 1114 is pinned for about 30 seconds, then driven into (hard) while their arm is tangled in the rack by team 48. Of course, the arm snaps in half, which is to be expected from what seems to me to be an intentional decision to do just that.

Note that there was a ten point penalty in this match for pinning, and no penalty at all for anything else.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Wow, that's... interesting

It appears that as soon as 1114's arm was in a precarious position, it was pushed until the arm popped from the socket. What a terrible event to take such a wonderful alliance out of their chance on Einstein...

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

OK, there may need to be a traffic cop in place on this one...

I'll warn everyone right now, keep your emotions in check on this thread. We don't need any "I hear that this happened, yada yada". Keep your own credibility, tact, and dignity in place by only posting only what you must. If you did not see anything first hand, then your account of what happened won't be worth much.

Tread carefully,
Andy B.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

That's because 48 was pushing on 1114's bumpers. They were pinning, but there's no rule that says if something breaks an extra penalty must be assigned. If 48 had been directly smashing the 1114's arm it probably would have been a different matter.

I was watching the match from the floor as I was on the pit crew, and it was pretty hard to see what was going on considering the mess of robots and the fact it occurred on the opposite side of the rack from the red alliance drivers.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Well, i am not surprised about how long it took for someone to make a whole thread about this. I am disapointed in the reactions of individuals not on either team on how they are reacting to this and what thier thoughts are. I have talked to mentors on both teams and they feel bad at what happened and frustrated. I have sent out a few PM's to other people about thier posting of this issue. I have grecieved anything from i agree with you too, forget you i have my thoughts and im stubborn i don't like them anymore.

But i do ask one thing, please no bashing of one team becuase of what happended and thinking a team is no longer GP and is horrible and such. Would your grandmother be proud of how this discussion is going about? Atleast, i know my grandmother would be proud in what i am trying to do.

It seems every year there is one heated discussion about a little event such as this one every year. Hopefully one of these eyars this will stop. It's just a game, it's for HS'ers to learn, get out of the house, better prepare themselves for college and life, see a diffrent side of science and technology. This is not a wrestling league, so act like civil people and treat others the way you would like to be treated.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

wow
i am shocked about how this match was called.
the arm was still connected to the ringer also.
now the arm is completly off of 1114s robot.
the refs counted that the ringer that was scored was apart of 1114s robot because their arm was hanging there on it.
i will say no more.
there are some people on a team that frequently gets this done to that dont want to go tonationals anymore.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I'm going to disagree with you here. I seriously doubt that they could see through the rack from the other side of the field that the arm was about to break and that hit wasn’t hard at all. They were just pushed while the arm was in a bad position and it broke.

Hard defense yes, intentional destruction and disqualification, no way.

Just my humble opinion.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I agree that we should keep this discussion as civil as possible. From the video it is quite apparent that 1114 was caught up on the rack and that they were unable to move backwards and free themselves (we can see that 48 has more pushing in this scenario). 48's continuous pushing of 1114's robot is questionable. Therefore only 48's drive team can truly tell us what happened.

Aside from the actual breaking of the arm, I would also like to know why this tube wasn't counted as scored?

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I saw this match personally, so....

From what I saw, 48 was playing heavy defense on 1114. They knew the kinds of scores 1114 could put up especially when left alone, so 48 was pushing 1114 however they could. 1114 was first being pushed into the rack and their arm started bending backwards(the rack was being pushed). 1114 got free and started to place a tube on the middle row, and that's when it happened. 1114 was placing a tube on a middle row spider leg from an angle. 1114's base was being pushed forward by 48 but their arm was still hanging onto the tube which was in place on the spider leg. 1114 was close to dropping the tube on, all they had to do was let go but before they had a chance their arm snapped off.

This is what I remember.

edit//
The tube did not count because the arm was still attached to the tube.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I thought that rule had changed, as the head ref on our field told me that as long as the tube was supported by the rack, the tube would be counted as scores (Refer to QF 1-1 on Galileo).

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

This match unfortunately highlights only one of the several bad call made at curie. Semi Finals and finals are the most blatant examples of such claim.

Semi Finals 1 match 3. The match start with an iffy autonomous mode: 1114 releases the tube, but does not back up far enough and is still in contact with it. Although the stinger is cleared and the bar supporting the keeper, the referee takes it off. Now, this decision would have been reasonable, had it been consistent with other matches. During finals - 2, Foley Freeze goes for autonomous, clears the stinger, brings the keeper down on the spider leg and... does not have enough time to even open their gripper. Mrs. Referee comes, looks at it, and says it is scored.

But let's go on with the semi-finals. Although 48 often paid attention to always pin for less than 10 seconds, they did pin for a long time on many occasions. I was disappointed to realize the referees were paying so much attention to 1114 that they did not even count down for any pinning done on 469. Furthermore, a robot is supposed to back up 3 feet after each time it pins another robot, which pretty much means pinning, backing up a second, pinning, backing up a second is not acceptable. Finally, when a team is entangled in the rack and its arm begins to bend horribly, pushing further to break it should have been illegal, one way or another.

But I digress, let's go onto one last problem with this match: descoring. 469 scored a ringer on spider leg #6 I believe (did not have time to watch the video again), released it (passed the stinger and supported by leg) but was then pushed back by 48. The ringer was caught by the friction material riveted on the side of the robot's gripper and while swinging around, 469 took the already scored ringer with them. Unfortunately, this situation occurred rarely and referees counted on the end game only to record the score. I'd also like to point out that the ringer to which 1114's arm was attached after it was ripped off did not count, although the rules state that any part that is detached from the robot is not part of the robot anymore.

Conclusion on this match? I'll take the word of the referee herself for it: "defense was not unreasonable" (there was, originally, no penalty given) and 1114's arm riping off was just "one more design flaw". Now, "I'd love to talk to you, but I have another match to ref"

I feel bad, however, for bashing 1732, 67 and 48, because what happened to them during the finals is way worse than anything else I've seen.

During Finals match 2, and I mean, the REAL finals match #2, the #1 alliance outscored the #2 alliance by as much as 30 points I believe. I was however disappointed that the referees had forgotten to count 1 ringer for the 2nd seed alliance, which would have bumped up their score by 4 points. Although it would not have changed the outcome of the match, it was clearly one more mistake made on this field. The 2nd seed alliance naturally complained about that. Without any other explanation than "a field fault was made", the match was canceled and replayed. the #1 alliance lost the second match of finals because 4 points were forgotten...

P.S. Sorry to those who tried to dissuade me from posting. I tried to make it as tame as possible :$

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I believe that's just how they scored it. I am not sure what rules they were going by(Funny I even had to say this).

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

my whole thing is, the arm wasnt attached to the robot any more tho, so how could it have been apart of the robot?

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Several people have already said this, but I really don't think we're going to get anywhere worthwhile with the discussion of whether this play was too aggressive. However:
This seems to me to be a huge mistake. This Q&A response indicates that 1114's arm was a field element by the end of the match, so if the tube was HANGING (which it looks to be doing), then it ought to have counted. Was the ruling really that the tube was still in 1114's possession?

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

yes the ruling was that the tube was apart of 1114s robot therefore not scored.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I agree, I am just stating what happened.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I'm on 1114's side on this one.. not only because of the fatality suffered by their robot, but because of how consistently poor the calls were by the refs this weekend. I don't know.. 229 partially suffered from a few bad calls (scored ringers not counting, tipped alliance partners not resulting in any form of penalization, etc), but nothing really that compares to what I witnessed in the divisional eliminations as I walked around.

I'm speechless this year.

No one could have predicted how nationals turned out this year, AND FOR GOOD REASON.

The referees decisions are final-- and that has been shown by the record books, but I'll just have to say their POWER in these situations does not strongly correlate with their ABILITY to ensure that these finals calls are just-- that is, inline with what has been written in the rules.

This whole year has been weird, and I must say that I'm glad its over.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

does anybody have names of the refs and what regionals they reffed at.

if these guys have never worked together this season, then i think it is fair to say that a whole team of refs should be put onto a field, not ref x from y regional and ref w from z regional...

That could solve alot of these problems for next year.

I was uncival about this in another thread, therefore there is no need for me to restate my opinion.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I am sorry to say that I agree. FIRST Teams are asked to be more and more professional as the years come by, and yet the infrastructure itself remains very amateurish. Maybe we should try and work out the few glitches that remain before trying to mass export a beta product.

Francois.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I just wanted to bring up a suggestion, Just like they have in football, why don't these refs have a booth review, just like the refs bothered to do at waterloo in qf2.4. allow a team to throw a red flag onto the field to call a challenge, just like in football, if the challenge is overturned, then it's overturned, but if the ruling stands, then that alliance loses their timeout. I think that would really help stuff like this from ever happening.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

In football they have 20 cameras covering every play and very expensive production equipment. Do you want your entry fee to double?

We have to rely on humans and humans aren’t perfect. We just need to suck up our GP and go on.

All-in-all I think the refs do an amazing job under pretty intense and stressful situation. I’m glad so many hard working people give up their vacation days and come help us play our game.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

We recieved ramming penalties for defense much less rough than that... The reffing was not consistent this year.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I agree as well.

The tube should have counted since once the arm broke off it is considered part of the field. I use a 50 question test on rules before a 121 driver can touch joysticks. From the 4 competitions I've seen this year, the rules need to simpler and enforced.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I can see that this thread is quickly going down hill. I am closing the thread till tomorrow morning so that cooler heads will prevail. When re opened please think about what and how you are saying it.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I have re opened by request. Please remember that we are here to discuss facts, not to slam teams or refs. They are volunteers.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I was on the field for that match, and would like to offer my perspective.

1114's arm was clearly bending back, as you can see in the video, and speaking as a defensive driver, when you are pinning someone against the rack, you can generally clearly see their arm and whether or not it is flexing/at the point of breaking. Regardless of whether or not they saw the arm flexing, it was still an excessive use of force. Excessive force is a DQ. There was no DQ.

What I found most despicable was the celebration of 48 after 1114's arm snapped off. You can't see it in the video, but it was clearly seen by several eyewitnesses, myself included. This is entirely against everything that I've ever been taught in the years that I have been in first. I know, I know, compete on the field and cooperate off the field, but celebrating when your opponents arm comes off - clearly using excessive force - that goes beyond "competing" and into "willful destruction," which was not a part of the gracious professionalism that I was taught.

Myself and several other people witnessed 48 trying to break 1114's arm off in Toronto. They then went through the pits bragging about their defense on 1114. They also played defense on 1114 during practice matches both at GTR and Championships, which was clearly witnessed.

As to the "design flaw," in the video, you can clearly see 1114's arm moving the 330 pound + friction rack. In all of the events I was at this year (Waterloo, GTR and Championships), I never saw anyone else move the rack. (Edit: never saw anyone else's arm spin the rack in a circle while attached to a spider leg). Ever. Their arm spun the rack before snapping off. I have not seen the design myself, however, this is in my mind irrefutable proof of the solid design I know that 1114 would produce.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Why should Defensive based bots not be able to practice what they are designed for? Yes i agree to some extent, but the intent of practice is just that, practice. They have just as much of a right to play as their robot is made to do as any other robot.

I will agree with you on some what of a front that excessive D shouldn't be played in practice matches. I see that there are two matches for practice, in one match play D on any team as possible, as much as possible. Maybe match two plays less D and roam around the other end of the field and test new ideas?

In the end, i don't care if you have a purely Offense robot or purely Defense robot; they both have the right to practice what their robot's capabilities are.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Thanks Steve W. for keeping an eye on this thread - much apprciated.

Everyone - keep this one civil and relavent to the thread topic.
Discuss what happened in an appropriate manner.

I didn't witness it, as I was over at Archimedes at the time.

Carry on

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

There's another thread to discuss defense in practice matches. Let's leave this thread to talk about the direct issues and facts surrounding SF1.3. Thanks.

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...e #post608676

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I will not state my opinion on that (Curie Semifinal 1 - 3) particular match. but in regards to defense in a practice match: I think its is a good practice for teams to inform and request the other teams that they will be defending prior to a practice match. I know that my team 1504 did just that when we played defense in a practice match at nationals.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I'm sorry, I've been too busy collecting facts and personal statements from independent sources to really digest the rest of this thread prior to this post. I will leave the replies to those posts to honest people who feel the need to provide factual evidence on this extremely unfortunate situation. One would hope and pray that rumor-mongerers and piler-oners would stay away from this. Some would truly appreciate this gesture of doing and saying nothing.

The following was sent to me from our pit mentor, Donnell, who is notorious for remaining in the pit during elimination rounds due to some strange superstition. I know this doesn't answer all the questions I'm sure are swimming around inside all your little heads right about now, but perhaps this is a good start at finding out the truth about all of this?

"After the robot came back to the pits (after the Curie Finals) I went to congratulate Johnny (Pasco) and he was visibly upset and shaken. I thought he was just exhausted from all the excitement, as his face was red and he had his head down on his arms leaning on the "War Wagon". I put my arm around him and congratulated him on a great season. He just lifted his head up and stared into space and shrugged. I told him to hold his head up because he had a great season as a new driver (winning a regional) and didn't do any worse in Atlanta than we did last year. He just said, "Yeah, but I broke their arm." I asked, whose arm, and he said 1114. This is the first I had heard about the whole incident. I was surprised that this specific incident was bothering him that much considering it was a whole tier of the Curie Finals prior to what he had just completed. Not knowing the severity of the incident, I just told him not to worry about it because everybody's robot gets damaged, especially in the Championship Finals. Pasco said, "No, you don't understand, their arm just snapped in half - I didn't mean to do it and I wasn't trying to do it, I didn't know what happened until it broke." …….he stopped short and said that he didn't want to talk about it anymore, he didn't know what to do…..then he walked away."

************************************************** *************


...

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

if you watch the video until the end, you will notice, that if there were 3 more seconds given on the field, we wouldn't be talking about this, instead we would be talking about how great of a team 1114 is, facing all that adversity and still able to lift MARS up.

How close they came was almost amazing, it just goes to show HOW GREAT 1114 really was.

also I wanted to know this, im trying to figure this out, but i couldn't find it anywhere, if that ringer that wasn't scored, if that counted, what would have been the final score, that also goes for the 469 descored ringer.

TIA

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Here is my prospective of the match. I was the human player on 1732.

I didn't even know 1114 broke thier arm until after the eliminations when someone from my team told me. While I wasn't specifically watching 48 and 1114, I wouldn't assume that 48 knew that they were about to break 1114 arm. As most of you probably know, its very hard to see whats going on on the other side of the rack.

I also heard or saw no celebrating from 48 after 1114's arm broke. Standing right next to them during the match and after the match, they didn't say any thing about breaking thier arm. They also showed great gracious professionalism throughout the eliminations, also. After we got eliminated by the 2nd seeded alliance in the finals, 48's coach reminded the whole alliance to shake hands with the other alliance and congradulate them. I would be suprised if they did celebrate breaking thier arm in anyway. However, if they did intentially break or celebrate the breaking of the arm, that's awful and shouldn't be tolerated. If that is the case, I would like to apologize to 1114 and the rest of thier alliance.

It's one of those things you hate to see happen, especially in the elimination rounds. As it has been stated before, we shouldn't jump to conclusions or start rumors that are not true.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I was down on the field watching that match with Koko Ed, Joel J. and Travis Hoffman from team 48. This is what I have to say after spending some time with the drive team of 1114.

1) I don't want to be yelled at if I was a coach and I went down there with my driveteam to seek for answers to "Why isn't the ringer scored," or "How were the calls made?"

2) After our machine (that we put our whole heart into for 6 weeks) breaks, I don't want to be questioned about the quality of my robot.

3) I believe everyone was watching the finals on einstein. Please make the playing field leveled.

In my 6 years of involvement in FIRST, this is the first time there were many complains and mistakes. There has to be something done so the kids can enjoy/play the game without having to go back in their pit and cry.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Im not going to touch on the unfortunate incident during sf 1-3, i really can't word it any better than Travis did. However the issue about Canada has me disturbed:
48 was not trying to break 1114's arm of in Toronto, nor were we trying to break it off in Atlanta. In Toronto we played defense against 1114, in our opinion they were the strongest offensive robot there, so to play effective defense against such a strong team is something to be proud of. We were proud of playing effective D on 1114 because they were so strong, not because we wanted to break them, it is not, and has never been our intention to break any robot that we are on the field against.

Now, you can accept that as the truth, or you can continue believing that we set out with the sole intent of breaking 1114, who up until this incident we were proud to call close friends. I only hope that in the future we can call them friends again.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I've taken some time to calm down, and now I'm ready to post some facts. I'll leave my opinions out of this, because they're clearly clouded by my emotions. PM me if you want to hear my rambles.

Fact: Team 48 had been posting on CD numerous times about the virtues of defense. You can search for these posts. Not a big deal, since defense is part of the game. Until you put into the context of this match.

Fact: Team 48 "joked" about wanting to play defense on 1114, whille being their partner, so that they could "show off their defense"

Fact: Team 48 nearly ripped 1114's arm off in a qualifying match at the Toronto Regional. They backed away, allowing 1114 to proceed, and score an additional 3 tubes. A mentor from 48 then said (paraphrasing from memory) "If we weren't so concerned about your arm, we could have completely shut you down that match"

Fact: Members of Team 48's driveteam, led by the Drive Coach, celebrated when 1114's arm snapped off. This was witnessed by myself, and numerous members of other teams. If I hadn't seen this with my own eyes, I would not believe it myself.

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

Fact: Multiple Team 48 members told members of 1114 to "look out, we're coming after you" prior to the matchup. Normally we would just assume that meant they were going to defend us. In the context of the match, my feelings are now different.

Fact: Team 48 was booed by a large section of the Curie stands (1114 was not part of this group) when they were announced for their next match. I have never seen this at FIRST event before, and I think it says a lot about how upset people were about this incident.

Fact: 48 pinned 1114 for 34 seconds, without backing up by 3 feet for 3 seconds.

Fact: The head referee was not aware of the 3 feet for 3 seconds rule. Even though this was discussed at the driver's meeting. She actually had to look it up at the scorer's table.

Fact: The head referee said "how do I know your arm was any good", to our Coach and Driver

Those are the facts about many of the situations that have been disputed.

I don't want the ugly incident of this match to take away from the great play of Teams 67 and 1732. Both teams had amazing robots, and displayed a huge amount of class. Members of both teams actually apologized to us about the actions of team 48. This impressed me, and helped me remember why I do FIRST. Then again, I should have expected nothing less from a classy organization like the HOT team.

I'd like to personally thank every team and individual who came to us to express their concern and sympathies about the incident. Having the support of all of you helped our team's emotional psyche.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I was watching the Curie matches. I think that it's horrible what happened to 1114. My team built a similar robot (well, similar in the sense that we tried to integrate ramps and an arm). To save weight and ramp space we made a "clock arm". Here's my story and my perspective on this:

http://rassi.ath.cx/stuypulse/view_p...eek-1&id=Tom10

We had a tower on our chassis and a light aluminum tube cantilevered out on a single shaft. Now, we thought this was the coolest thing ever. It ramped, it picked up tubes, it scored... but we got to our first regional at Trenton and two things happened: 1. we had a practice match against a robot with no arm which was purely defensive and they pushed us into the rack and continued pushing even when it was clear that our arm was entangled. 2. when we got our match lists we realized that due to the algorithm, we were going to face that same team every single match. When we talked to them about being aggressive, they told us that their only strategy was defense. And it's true. What could they do but block and push? You can't do it perfectly your first match, and so they continued playing D on us, but improved match after match, keeping away from illegal moves.

So here's my analysis: you can't blame defense bots. That was a viable strategy this year for those that couldn't design in an arm. There's clearly a reason that bumpers have been written into the guidelines. After our arm snapped off and we disassembled it, all we could do during matches was play defense ourselves, and if anyone's ever driven, you know how hard it can be to push someone out of the way but not too hard. Sometimes you can't back out, sometimes you're stuck. Sometimes it's true, you get caught up in the moment--especially when the heat is on like it is at the championship. Can you imagine the pressure to look good?

The bottom line is: nobody comes to a regional intending to completely wreck someone else's six weeks of hard work. Nobody. Whatever the refs say is up to them, and being sore about it now is useless. 48 had a strategy and did what they had to do. They seem to have felt really bad about it and still do. 1114 worked really hard, but you know what? Everybody knows how great their robot is, and they'll get plenty more shots at Einstein in the future. It appears to be bad luck to me, for both teams, but it's not the end of the world and I don't think it's worth hating anyone for.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I can confirm Karthik's facts as I was 5.5ft away from the field.

This thread should be moved to the Moderated section...

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

the rules in pretty much ALL the regionals that I saw and been too, had LAXED refereeing. Our arm broke in the finals in the NJ regional while it was clearly stuck in the rack and we received constant ramming also while in that predicament.
It was the nature of the game and how the regionals unfolded, EVEN THOUGH, the rules at the beginning of January stated, you cant do that and you may be disqualified.
Im just saying, we are not going to complain about it anymore and it is the nature of what happened in some tough hard fought competition.
What a shame, but it just happened.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I think this just might be the saddest day of my life since I joined FIRST.

Karthik, I'm not going to respond to anything stated above, as no one would believe me anyway.

Everyone, we have all made regrettable mistakes since last Saturday, on both 48 and 1114, and perhaps beyond, and I hope one day we can all look back at this, still as friends, and wonder how we all allowed ourselves to get to this point.

I'm sorry for not being perfect.

[Thread redirect]
Perhaps for the sake of progress, for now we could focus on discussing the execution of the match administration by the referees and the subsequent conversations between them and all upset parties? It seems some things were said/done that really hurt the feelings of people when it really wasn't necessary. I really do not like picking on these volunteers, who are under a great deal of pressure (and it seems NO ONE wants to ever believe me when I say that), but it seems like there was enough inconsistency in applying the rules from field to field to warrant further discussion regarding what went down in the Curie elims. Hopefully, this will help 1114 get some of the answers they deserve to hear. I will save further Team 48-centric comments for when I feel it is more appropriate...i.e. any time that isn't right now, once I've examined the events in more detail. There are just too many unknowns for me to make a statement one way or the other.
[/Thread redirect]

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

ok i saywe getoffof that topic of what happened between 48 and 1114 and geton the topic of why the tube wasnt counted.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

The fact of the matter is that no one is perfect, so none of us should be playing the blame game in here. Everyone makes mistakes, and everyone, if they have the will to, learns from those mistakes.

I understand why people are upset. And they have every single right to be upset. But really, at the end of the day, it's just a competition. There's a lot more to take away from FIRST than the wins.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

This is a unhappy situation for everyone involved. Most people here havnt broken another teams robot by playing defense on them, but let me tell you it is one of the worst feelings you can get in FIRST.

Last year at GLR I was our teams driver for a mostly defensive robot. Our shooter shot too far and we werent allowed to use it, so we played defense instead. We made it to the quater finals and faced team 1114, 1503? and another good bot. The first round I broke both 1114 and 1503's tank treads off their robots by pushing them sideways. I didnt mean to and I didnt think it would happen, and I definitly felt bad afterwards. I figured they blamed me for doing it on purpose and that I wasnt being GP. I wish i said sorry afterwards but I didnt because it was too hectic, (I am sorry 1114 and 1503).

But anyways, My point is that I feel just as sorry for the driver of team 48 as I do for team 1114.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I think FIRST needs a better communication line between the refs and the drive teams. Lets face it it must be extremely embarassing to have to recall a prior ruling and it doesn't happen often. Maybe the head ref could have a very quick chat with one member of each team before the next round starts and before the results are posted. This would allow each side to quickly point out any questions they may have had durring a match and clear every things up.

I know at UTC a procedure was layed out to speak with the head ref, however the one time that our team wanted to speak with him, we followed the procedure and they started the next match without talking to us. Communication on the field is key.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

On the part of the ring that 1114's arm was attached to:

Judging from the webcast video, it looks like the ring's weight isn't being supported by the leg itself. It seems that it's being supported by the plate on the end of the leg.

Just an answer for those people who believe the ring should be scored.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I saw this too (I was watching curie elims to support 330) and wasn't sure as to why they were chelebrating...

I am sure they were celebrating, but I can't for sure say that they were cheering because they broke 1114.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I am not sure what to think about this incident yet. If the observations about pre-meditation and celebration in post #36 are accurate, disciplinary action of some sort vs team 48 seems to be in order. At what point, if any, did Team 48 apologize for "accidently" breaking 1114's arm? I haven't seen anything about this

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I'm positive this aspect of 1114's 2006 robot has been previously discussed on CD and I even witnessed teams talking about purposefully trying to break their treads at GTR last season in order to shut Simbotics down. This is in no way the topic of the discussion but It will help me illustrate a point later on, I promise.

But I was also standing on the field during Curie Semifinal 1 – 3. I was actually standing behind 48’s driver station during the entire match and would just like to point out that I clearly saw 1114’s arm snap. I also held what was left of the joint that was connected to their robot later that afternoon. It was not a weak joint by any stretch of the imagination. I wouldn’t expect anything less than amazing design, engineering, and fabrication from the crew from team 1114.

But back to what I clearly saw on the field and from team 48’s drive team. After witnessing the arm being snapped from 1114’s tower, I saw team 48’s drive coach with a very large grin on his face and do some sort of hand motion that closely resembled a fist pump behind the wall. I was too surprised at his reaction to look at his drive teams. When the match ended I saw the same man do multiple energetic fist pumps while hunched over slightly and screaming exuberantly. I also witnessed him chuckle as team 1114’s drive team and coach went to try and get an understanding of the Referee’s calling. I admit that I do not believe that 1114’s coach should have approached the Head Ref in this situation, but I can definitely understand his disbelief and anger at their decision.

In my mind and in my opinion this whole situation was unsettling. After the match when I was talking to Karthik with other people down on the floor, he stated, “I like VEX better.” Not because 1114’s FVC team won the FVC World Championship for the second year in a row (Congratulations), but because you would never see such disgraceful actions being shown by anyone that is part of that program. He likes it because, “people are playing the game to score, no intentional destructiveness.” I have mentored FVC for one year, FLL for two, and participated in FRC for six. I can tell you I have never seen anything quite like this before in ANY on of those programs and I hope I never see anything close to it again.

I can understand that teams want to shut down powerhouse teams like Simbotics, WildStang, *ThunderChickens, and Beatty. Whether it me keeping them from hanging (2004), capping (2005), Shooting (2006), or capping (2007). But I lose respect for any team that tries to purposefully hurt their opponents. I know that during my time as a member of 229, and many other teams also do this, I make sure that any damage we may inflict on ANY other team is not too extensive. I also offer the assistance of any member of our team to help fix any damage we may have unintentionally inflicted on any other team. Great team’s do not always have to win, and may lose** because they understand the values of FIRST and strive to meet them. Those teams are the ones I have the highest respect for.


* 237’s tip of 217 in their last qualification match of the day the Friday of Championships comes to mind, but that is for another thread entirely.
** Last year on Einstein when the eventual Championship Finalists used their time out so that the finals would be fair and even. I am positive that that alliance would have won if they had not understood and followed the values that FIRST is designed to instill in individuals.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

The issues with this match seem to revolve around 1114's arm falling off as a result of 48's crazy defense. My instinct tells me that this was definetly excessive ramming, and that the refs that made the call started recounting every single time 1114 found a way to move a little bit (less than 3 seconds). By that logic it was ok, but it looks like 48 held contact continuously which i personally feel is grounds for excessive ramming. The penalty could of been much larger here.

The second part here, when 1114's arm was still hanging on to the tube on the rack, I'd rule as a scored ringer, because when parts (particularly those pesky flag holders) fall off robots and they get up ramps, the robot counts as being on the ramp despite the flag holder left on the carpet somewhere. I'd say 1114 didn't intentionally leave their arm on the rack so the tube should of counted.

But the ruling stands, 1732, 67, 48 win over 1114, 1523, 469, 30-10

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

At the request of Karthik himself, I went behind the curtain and talked to whomever was in their pit at the time. I was visibly upset over watching and hearing the arm break, and up til that point, I was not sure how to proceed. I was glad Karthik provided me the opportunity to approach his team. When I arrived at their pit area, it was at this point I apologized for what had happened. Shortly after that, I was gently asked by 1114's field coach to leave their pit. It was obvious he was distraught over the entire situation. Several separate attempts from our various team members to approach the team with regrets were met with uninviting stares or rebukes, including at the team wrap party, so we all thought it best to leave them alone the rest of the night.....and beyond.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Was the arm being supported by the arm which was supported by the spider leg? If it is so, then it is correct that it should not count imho, because it is being supported by a field element other than the spider leg.*

Also, we had something somewhat similar, if not as agregious, happened to us in our first Qualifying Match at Midwest. Team 858 pushed us into the arm and we started going up on 2 wheels then they kept pushing and we ended up on our backs. It was not penalized then either. It seems to me both of these are consistant, though I think both of them should have been penalties.

* Note I do not know this is the case, pure speculation.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

You might have missed my earlier post that stated that the weight of the tube was not supported by the leg like it was stated in the rules and even pointed out at Kickoff. It was supported by the stinger and the plate on the end of the leg, thus not legally scored.

I'd hate to see a relationship between two teams be ruined because of one instance. If a team wants to win, that's fine. You get one chance to win. You can fix an arm anytime.

That's just how I feel...

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Sure this post might just be viewed as saving face, but whatever.

That is of course, my comment you link to. I'll link the misperception of my intent in that post primarily to a misuse of the :cool: smiley.

My real meaning, I believe, was trying to state how I felt as I watched the disabling of those two of the triplets. It was definitely more of a "holy... did we just do that?!?!" than anything whatsoever like "come-on driver, ram their robots over and over." I didn't even know this was a weakness of the triplets until that match.

I will also state that I was indeed not a fan of seeing identical robots at the regionals. That was probably the biggest factor in any hostility in my post.

None of this is the subject of the thread, so if you feel a need to argue with me for whatever (probably stupid) reason, use PMs.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

i am not talking about the keeper. i am talking about the ringer that 1114 was scoring when their arm broke.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Neither the 1114 ringer, nor the 469 ringer would have changed the outcome on their own. If both had been scored it would have created a row of 6 for Blue for a final score of 64-30.

I was not at the Championships, so my comments will be contained to what can be found in the webcast footage.

From the webcast footage, their is not enough coverage of 1114's arm being removed to make any type of judgment on whether it was intentional or not.

The descoring of the ringer by 469 also cannot be seen clearly. When the camera cuts away 469 is still in possession of the tube and when it comes back the tube is being taken off the rack. It is not entirely clear, but it does look like the tube was released at some point and is being taken off from a different angle. I cannot be certain if the tube was fully clear of the 469 mechanism to qualify as a score, but judging by what I can see combined with accounts in this thread that do not appear to have been disputed, this ringer should have counted.

The 1114 ringer definitely looks to be supported by the stinger initially. The point that is not caught on the webcast is the final position of the ringer after being jostled by 469. You can see 469 hit the ringer as they descore their own, but you cannot see if this causes it to clear the stinger or not.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Thank you for keeping this civil.

That said I would like to comment on the "scored ringer". Myself and another FIRSTer watched both the soap108 video and the Google video. After playing over and over for more than 30 minutes I have come to the conclusion that neither video gives 100% proof of 1114's arm and ringer either being on the 8 leg or off. There is also no video evidence for the de-scored ringer on leg 7. If there are other videos the have conclusive proof, please post a link.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

If you watch the robots carefully, 1114 was never pinned against the rack for 30 seconds. Team 48 backed off every once in a while and towards the end 1114 was sideways against the rack and could have driven away. It is unfortunate that thier arm came off and there was a scoring problem, but what happened cannot be changed.

Just somthing i saw: I noticed that after the match a student from team 1114 was going confront team 48 in an aggressive manner. The student was restrained by what looked like a bystander or another member of 1114. The result of this match should not end in ill feelings towards other teams since we all know this is just a game and there is always next year.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Team 48 never backed off by 3 feet for 3 seconds, as specified in the rule. As such, the count should not have been broken. Unfortunately, the count did no begin for at least 15 seconds, and was stopped after a short backup.

A few members apologized, but none took responsibility for the incident. A few suggested that we "build a tougher arm next year."

The incident is over and done with, and by no means are we expecting or looking for any sort of formal apology.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Sadly, I concur with Karthik’s fact statements, having witnessed the match at field-side, then later watching the videos, and all-the-while feeling uncomfortable with Team 48’s pre-championship claims on defensive manoeuvres – particularly using 1114 as an example.

However, what is done is done. FIRST is a microcosm of the real world. And this is just another example of what happens in the real world. Every day we read about things that don’t seem fair. Every day we see companies and governments that take action or make decisions that unfairly impact others – whether it is trade practices, employment equity, currency manipulation, or judgement errors.

In great companies, leaders take accountability for the actions of their team. In similar situations, leaders resign from key posts as a sign that they accept responsibility. I respectfully request that the leadership of Team 48 assess the role of the coach to determine if it is appropriate for him to continue in his role.

- Steve

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I dont know what the specific rule is but you will notice that each time 48 backed up from the rack 1114 went with them. Therefore its just like two robots pushing eachother in the middle of the field. The timing for each pin was more like 7-8 seconds and that means that they did not need to move back three feet for three seconds, its only when its for 10 seconds. This could be due to certain refs. Example: when a robot gets pinned for 5 seconds and the robot doing the pinning backs away the refs usually stop the count and begin a new one if they pin them again.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

The rule actually states that the robot that is doing the pinning has to back off 3 feet for 3 seconds before it can go back to pinning.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

First of all i was actually there on the field and saw the whole match. What actually happened was (and it's kinda hard to see on the recording but) we (1523) were supposed to play defense while the our partners scored on the rack. While 1114 was being pinned up against the rack their coach was yelling the count for pinning and he got to 10 before they let up and when they backed away it was not for 3 seconds which as i believe is the required amount. As a result of this pinning, backing off and pinning again 1114's arm got wedged up in between the tube and spider leg and was snapped at the joint. 1114 then backed up and broke the wire connections which were the only things left holding the arm on. Now that I look back on it, they probably should have stayed put so as to not get a penalty for "littering the field" but that wouldn't have changed the outcome anyway. There were definitely some bad calls also including the removed keeper which was obviously passed the stinger (or at least it looked that way from behind the driver's station). Over all I'm happy we did as good as we did and I don't hold any grudges or anything... Well that's pretty much what happened and even though we tried to protest it the judge said that it was "not excessive roughness" and the rest is history.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

By the original wording of the rules, you are (partially) correct; any small amount of backing off before the 10-second mark ended the count. (I've called it that way myself, however much I didn't like it.) However, at the drivers' meeting on Thursday, it was stated that the pinning count would not stop until the pinning robot had backed off a full 3 feet for a full 3 seconds, which I'm quite sure was not the case. Also, the orientation of the robot is immaterial; pinning a robot sideways is still pinning, which is defined as "inhibit[ing] the movement of another ROBOT while in contact with a field element or border".

"It's just a game" is not a catch-all excuse for inappropriate (and here I am wording myself very carefully) behaviour. And while we will most certainly be back in full force next year, that's no reason that we should be denied a fair chance at the big prize (well, second biggest prize) this year.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

As a former driver myself, I can understand how 48's drivers continued to plow into 1114 until the arm broke off. The rack is rather hard to see through, especially with the ringers that were put on. I will not agree or disagree with any of Karthik's points, as I did not witness some of them myself. I was, however, standing right by the field, as part of the pit crew.

The greatest disappointment to me, however, was the incosistent or lack of refereeing on the Curie field. The 10 point penalty for aggressive play by 48 was only called after many complaints to the head referee, who blamed 1114's arm breaking on "poor design". And in the middle of our talking with the head referee, she left in order to ref the next match, effectively making any chance of a replay or change in the outcome impossible.

Say what you want about referees. Sure, they're volunteers. They can make mistakes. But every team that goes to nationals pays several thousand dollars on the robot itself, transportation, and entry fees, and countless hours of work and practice to get to Atlanta. To have it all squandered because of volunteers who don't know the rules and make inconsistent calls is absolutely ridiculous. I can appreciate their volunteering and all, but that doesn't make our complaints invalid. And then, to have the audacity of blaming the design of a robot in order to cover up for the fact that the head ref wasn't doing her job? I was stunned.

I have witnessed this too many times in Atlanta. In 2005, one of the volunteers working the autoloader stared at the field while one of our alliance partners waited for 20 seconds for them to load it. We were told to deal with it. In 2006, all three of the opposing alliance robots crossed the line to play defense, and no call was made. And now, this year, ringers weren't counted and destruction of robots was dealt with by a slap on the wrist, only after several complaints. It's no longer fun. It's just disappointing.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Disclaimer: I was not at the event, I only saw video of the said action and I am going solely based off the rules. ALSO, I cannot tell who was on which side of the field. If 48 was performing defense on the opposing alliances side of the field, seeing and/or maneuvering may have been very difficult through the rack and with the intense game play.

First, as of approx. 1:09 on the google video here, 1114 appears to be attempting to hang a game piece.

My first Rule to point out is G39, which states:

From G39, we can conclude that as it appears, 1114 was attempting to score a game piece and therefore, immune from the pinning rule. IF 1114 would have dropped the game piece and stopped attempting to score, they would have been subject to the normal 10 second pinning rule.

Also, let me point out a another rule. Rule G35 states:

While we do not know 48's intentions, the contact was in the bumper zone AND was not ramming, therfore the contact was legal. However, if they clearly demonstrated that their strategy was to disable 1114 (such as high speed ramming and contact OUTSIDE the bumper zone), they would have at least a 10 point penalty assessed, and possibly a DQ.

To prevent a conversation style post, i'm gonna edit this one.

Is there any FIRST clarification on this rule? From what I have seen, the rule has seemed to apply to a robot pinning a robot this is attempting to score. Not a robot that is attempting to score pinning a defensive robot.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Someone may beat me to this post, but you've misinterpreted the rule here. It means that if 1114 was trying to place a ringer, it could not be called for pinning 48 in the course of that action. Not the other way around. 48 was clearly not trying to score a ringer at the time.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I agree with this, and the video shows it. I think what Conor said earlier is accurate though - both the refs and our drive team failed to interpret the pinning rule correctly. Per what he told me, the coach was going off the counts of the ref, who incorrectly timed the activity and threw no flags. The count should reset after 3 seconds of backing off, but the ref reset it prematurely. I would say that each pin was typically well short of 10 seconds in length, but the cumulative effect of all the pinning intervals was well in excess of the acceptable length of time. But none of the drive team was aware of that while the match was being played.

Given the rules, I feel the pinning penalty that was ultimately applied was more than justified. Some will tell you I said that much more than that was expected, and they would be correct.

Jay and others, thank you for your observations, but I'd ask that you'd be a lot more patient before assigning malicious intent to anyone - especially if you are assigning it in general to an entire FIRST team. Please consider the overall audience you are speaking to when making these claims. If I were an outsider browsing these forums, I'd ask why the heck I'd want to get involved with this crazy program if this were the first thing I read about.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

It was a design flaw, not saying that the ramming was legal or anything like that, but it was a design flaw. Honestly, your arm should be able to hold up to the point where you tip over or be designed to fail in a way that is simple to repair(such as: shear pins).

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Even though they did not back up for the required amout of time 1114 moved with 48's robot and during that amount of time there was free movement of both robots, therefore the count ended after each backup of team 48. If 1114 stayed where they were the case would be different, but since they moved with 48 away from the rack I think they had the freedom of movement.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Steve is 100% correct. If we were ever between the rack and 1114 as they were trying to score, they could pin us there until doomsday if they wanted to.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

as emotions settle down, lets remember why we do this?? A great learning opportunity for schools, communities and most of all, the students.
There were a lot of other issues that teams can complain about, like scheduling of matches. Why offer a rookie all star award or highest seeding when many of them got a "free" ride with veteran teams? Why is it that I can never be partners with the teams right next to us in the pit? Shouldn't it be purely random? I can speak from an experience where a robot that couldn't do anything really can move its way up to a highly competitive regional as a #2 seed???
The design of the game where all the robots fought to get to one area in the middle to score lent itself to this situation with defense. Perhaps, like Dave Lavery mentioned to us about the 2005 tetra game, we need to have more different areas of scoring and loading locations than robots to help prevent a clog of robots fighting for scoring/positioning so that this sort of thing cant happen. That was their intent that year in creating an offensive, scoring game.

I know that this wont make the emotions change, but Im sure many have expressed their support in saying that it was an unfortunate accident and no one purposely wished anyone harm, including our team.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Also, I believe rourke is correct, let us parse the wording.

Note that a ROBOT attempting to HANG a GAME PIECE on the RACK will be immune from a "pinning" violation as long as it is clear that the ROBOT is continuing to attempt to HANG the GAME PIECE.

Note that the Robot is attempting to hang a game peice. They are "immune" to a pinning violation. I assume that immune means that they will not be called on them. The robot being discribed is clearly the one scoring as the last one states that it is as long as it is continuing to attempt to hang.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Please refrain from placing blame. Your grandmothers are watching ( I am almost that old). Facts only please or I will commence shutdown sequence.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Ive had some bad experiences with FIRST and wrong decisions or wrong calls, but i feel that Curie field was really possesed, not only in out match, but as Freenchie said even in the finals with Hot and ELITE

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Umm, okay.

The failure was a stress failure, the tube was actually stretched and torn apart, not twisted. Yes, an aluminum tube was ripped apart.

Also, during the push, the arm held up enough and ended up twisting the rack 40 degrees, before it actually failed. Yes, it twisted the 330 pound rack 40 degrees. I'm not saying our arm was bullet proof, but saying a 3 foot lever arm needs to withstand at least 200 pounds of pushing force is ridiculous.

As for simple to repair, we had our spare arm on the robot and ready to compete in 15 minutes, just in case the ruling was overturned.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

"The greatest disappointment to me, however, was the incosistent or lack of refereeing on the Curie field. "
I hate to tell you this, but its been like that for a WHOLE lot of regionals than just Curie at championship.
Ex. #1: robot in starting position must be behind white line but not necessarily the keeper being held. Referees in two regionals we attended enforced it exactly the opposite.
Ex. #2: Our arm broke in a NJ regionals finals match. Where was that 3 second rule?
Ex. #3: Ramps cannot be deployed outside the home zone and exceed the 72 x 72" rule. Why were penalties not consistently called?

The responsibility of understanding game rules MUST apply to referees also as much as they hold teams to it. Referees like in sports dictate behavior in matches being played. Simply stating a rule is not enough.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I'm going to justify my belief by challenging the wording. When the GDC uses the term violation, it does not appear to mean penalty to me. Had they said the team hanging a game piece would be immune from the pinning penalty, i'd follow what is being said 100%. However, the choice of violation makes it seem like a team committing the pinning against them would be immune as well, or simply no action would be taken for robot-to-robot contact.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I dont see why it would be necessary to design an arm such that you're expecting it to fail at some point. I wasn't at the championships but I was at GTR and I saw the Waterloo regional and these guys basically have a giant "Kick me" sign taped to their robot... If the opposing alliance has at least one moving robot chances are there's going to be some defence played. Considering this has been going on for several years I'd expect these guys to make a design that they feel would stand up to a fair amount of rough play.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

This was clarified in a team update, Q&A and the driver's meeting. It was made very clear that it was legal for a team to pin somone while scoring. It did not mean that a scoring team is allowed to be pinned. But I do agree, this was not very clear in the initial version of the rules.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

This was discussed heavily at the beginning of the season, and i believe the GDC has addressed this wording many times in their forum. This rule is not up for questioning, sure it is not worded properly but the understanding by most (if not all) is that this applies to the offensive team attempting to score.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Thanks for the clarification on that rule. I'm assuming the discussion occurred at the ATL drivers meeting, in which I was not in attendance because 1023 failed to qualify for the event. However, I am surprised that I missed that GDC update/ruling. Does anyone care to point me in the direction on where it was clarified? I can't believe I went off my own judgment all season without an issue (though 1023 RARELY plays defense).

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

The referee was completely correct in removing the keeper - it was partially supported by the foot, the leg and the 1114 gripper. This is clearly visible in the video clip in the first post of this thread. I was on the floor at Curie (right where Dean Kamen addressed the crowd), and my immediate reaction was that it didn't count.

Per the definitions in the game manual (7.1.2):

HANGING: a GAME PIECE is considered HANGING if its’ weight is fully supported by a SPIDER LEG and it has been released by the POSSESSING ROBOT. A GAME PIECE is not considered HANGING if it is supported by the SPIDER FOOT.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

You're not the only one, Joel, people seem to be having difficulty forming an objective opinion on this match and the reffing. The fact that their arm broke off has absolutely nothing to do with DQing 48 or not. 1114's arm got caught in the rack while they were trying to score with someone playing defense on them.
As a driver who has played some defense this year I would have done the exact same thing as 48's driver. If you're trying to defend against someone who is just about to score but hasn't yet placed and released the ringer you're a bad driver if you DON'T keep pushing

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?

Again, people feel so badly for 1114 because they're such a grade A+ team and would likely have been Curie champs (and then who knows what).
This section of the stands obviously failed to see things objectively here. 1114 = good guys; 48 = bad guys. right?


http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...23692796016767
Definitely not a fact. The pinning in question starts at 1:02 and ends at 1:10 (that's 8 seconds btw). And before you say that 48 didn't back up 3 feet for 3 seconds, that rule doesn't apply when you are pushing back and moving back the 3 feet WITH THEM. That only makes it easier/quicker for them to re-engage in a pushing match they're sure to win.
The pinning stopped at 1:10 and started again at 1:14 (that's 4 seconds btw) and they certainly moved back more than 3 feet. If 1114 wanted to get out of that situation they should have stayed put, turned to the side and booked it out of there in the 3+ seconds and 3+ feet they had available instead of chasing after them for god's sake!
(watch carefully the space in between 1114 and the RACK, not 48 and 1114.)



I'll say it again, put yourself in the place of team 48's driver. Would you have backed off just as they were about to score the ringer? I doubt it.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Honestly, looking at your boom at competition and even before then when scouting, I said that it looked kind of flimsy, with as far as I could tell only a couple of small pieces near the end. I'm not trying to say there was a major design flaw, but to me that arm should have had more pieces re-enforcing it, especially since they were just tubes an not re-enforced pieces like the extruded aluminum our team uses. Overall, even to pulling stress like you're talking about, the amount of material used could have been far greater, but was likely given up to save weight. This allowed your robot to be very versitile, but not as robust.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

What happened is the reason why we will only get one tiny drivetrain motor in next year's game.:(

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Carl,

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.


Team 1114 has never been a fan favourite at any event, you know that better than anyone. Considering in the past people have cheered when our robot has broken, including people from a team you know rather well. Neither of us can know why 48 was booed, my guess is that it was because people thought it was a dirty play. Also, I wouldn't say it was likely that we would have been Curie division champs. 330 (best robot in 2007, hands down), 910 and 1270 would have had a lot to say about that.


I most definitely would have backed off. I know you wouldn't have, but that's what makes us different.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Wow... Look what can happen in the 6 hours I'm at work. This looks almost exactly like a repeat of a 2005 thread featuring a referreeing mistake in the semis at Midwest in which hearts were broken. I played a major part in that argument, putting blame on refs. I shouldn't have done that and I learned from it. Referees are only human and I agree that penalties should be assessed consistently.

I'm sorry to hear that 1114 and the rest of that alliance was put in this position. Karthik, I hope you and your team fix your arm and have it roaring to go at IRI. I hope to be there to cheer you all on.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

I believe you are misrepresenting what he's saying, as far as I can tell what he's saying is he didn't realize that your arm was about to fail before it did. Of course I could be wrong, in which case I would apreciate you pointing me to the post in which it was said.

Thanks
-nrv.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

All right Carl you got a point here, but you gota look at the footage more. Take a look between 1:18 and 1:28 throughout this time 48 was pinning 1114. They were going full out and drove right through 1114 while their arm was clearly tangled in the rack. This 10 seconds proves to me that yes, 48 was pinning. Also seeing 48 drive through 1114 like that while they were obviously tangled in the rack for 5-6 seconds till the point where the arm broke is something I doubt you would do (or I would let you do as operator).

edit: looking at the footage i would extend that pinning back to 1:15...
There's a reason we don't build bully bots anymore :p

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Carl stated he wouldn't have backed off, Karthik would have backed off so there is the difference. There is nothing ungracious about that statement.

BTW Carl and Karthik are friends.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Aluminium... what is that a mere 450 MPa ultimate yield? The mystery of the technical awards shutout is solved...

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

From a third person prespective it seemed inflamatory to me as well. *shrug* I guess it's just a misunderstanding.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

A little humor is good. Why is he getting neg reps?

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Let's stop negative repping others, especially new members into the ground for their opinion just because you don't agree. Negative repping is for malicious posts, posts/topics in bad-taste, misleading information, or false information.

On the other hand, they are just dots.

But let's not let this get out of hand so it has to be closed and/or moderated. So with that, sit back, take a deep breath, and think about what you post before you post it so you don't regret saying something later because it was a spur of the moment strike against someone else.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Once again i would like to point out that every 48 backed off 1114, 1114 backed up w/ them therefor when 48 resumed defence, they were in violation of the rules...although 1114's arm braking off is unfortunate, sometimes that is just the result of of rough play in a very rough match...

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Ok, I know I'm a little off-topic here, but I want to recognize what Karthik said here. Read it, read it carefully.

I want to congradulate 1114's team for being such darn good designers! In my 5 years doing this I've seen my fair share of robot damage, some as major as a ripped arm, and I've never even thought that it could be repaired with such speed. (In addition to the fact that their arm moved the rack!) Just take a second, and think about what an insane feat of engineering that is!


(I'm not going to take an opinion here, not because I'm not supposed to, but because I think I'm rather emotional about both 1114 and 48. We lost to 48 in GTR after a lot of defense, in which our robot broke (I'm not blaming anyone). And 610 and 1114 have had a lot of history over the past 2 years, playing together, playing against each other. So I have lots of strong feelings on both sides, I don't want that to get in the way of an interpretation of this particular incident)

Just wanted to point out the awesome engineering/design work.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

From a viewer you see 1114 as being tangled in the rack. As a driver and strategist I see them as trying to score, trying to complete a row that's going to lose the match for my alliance.

So what is pinning exactly? I see it as one team blocking a team against a solid structure as to prevent them from doing anything. Something swinging around and movable (especially something you are trying to score on) should hardly count. Remember in '06 when you were allowed to pin indefinitely on the ramp? The same mentality should still apply and I think that's how the refs were thinking.

The real problem here isn't robot design or play, it's the game itself. FIRST should have known better than to make game structures that extend at a perfect height to clothesline a robot or to snap an arm off. The enclosed space makes things even worse.

"Aim High" was designed with gameplay in mind, something they apparently forgot with Rack 'n Roll. I hope FIRST takes the same '06 approach next year.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Ok let me pose a different situation with very similar circumstances, but hopefully less emotions involved. At GTR we faced 379, 48, and 1006 in the quarter finals, a very similar pushing match happened while we were trying to score on the rack. Luckily our arm did not allow for the type of movement (yay worm gears!) that 1114's did, and it did not seriously damage our arm (though it was banged up).

http://www.thebluealliance.net/tbatv...p?matchid=3061

The situation was that we were trying to score and you can see from about 1:18 to about 1:40 'pushing' against us while we were trying to score, Effectively pinning us. This is very similar to the situation that happened against 1114 on the Curie field. Should this have been called pinning, because that is the question that I have been arguing with people for the last couple hours over this situation.

I thought I would propose we discuss this question over a less emotional match (in no way am I mad or angry at 48 over our match against them, hey we won the match). I am just trying to maybe propose a situation where the situation is the same but the end result is not as ugly.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

Easy now everyone, remember what everyone else has been talking about the entire time about posting without emotion and being as objective as possible. Posts like this below that are poorly formed and don't quote any specific source other than the fact that they are "in violation of the rules" do not serve any purpose in this thread and only further increase the likelihood that more lines will be drawn in the sand without proper understanding of the situation, or at least as close as it can come. I will guarantee you that you cannot cite a source in the rules that states that a robot backing up when another robot is playing defence on them is in violation of anything.

Lastly, no amount of rough play justifies being a piece of machinery as significant and as large as an arm being torn off. If that were your robot, think about how you would feel.

Re: Curie Semifinal 1 - 3, what happened?
 

There were a number of problems with aim high as well, including but not limited to, the overbalancing of autonomous modes, the fact that experienced teams that knew how to use the camera had a huge advantage in both regular and autonomous play, and various other thing. Overall I think the game this year was a solid one that would have real world aplications.