Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

This was compounded by the fact that the nearest replacement balls were off in the concourse about 100 feet away.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I see what you meant, 100 and 254 were the clear hurdlers. We were only chosen because we have an effective ball removing system (having removed several per match during the qualifiers). Yet, steel shafts don't bend on their own, and sadly robots don't cripple themselves.

And 1 more side note, this is a bit funny:

During the final matches, the leads to one (out of two) of our elevator drive motors was disconnected. This is why we were struggling to do take it off in the 3rd match.

In our motor configuration, when only 1 motor is driving, 75% of the elevators power is lost. (Due to the motor not only having to drive the elevator, but also having to back-drive a 108:1 planetary gearbox not pulling its own weight)

Thank you very much for your input, I've always liked both your team and your team name.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I didn't see them run a ball over, but I did notice the head ref stop them from changing the ball until it looked somewhat safe. Congrats on the win though, look forward to competing with(maybe?) you guys in Hawaii.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I am on Team 192. Certainly I think that the 3rd match was poorly judged, and I also agree that previous matches were as well. The fact that we filed a complaint that was acknowledged as a human error but was not corrected strikes me very oddly. Clearly the 12 point bonus should have be rescored, however, due to the pressure on the reffs of the final match, there was a rematch, where again the reffs failed to call team 254 possessing a blue track ball, breaking a field element, AND pinning down a robot for over 6 seconds. I do not object to the fact that 254 and 100 are excellent robots that deserve first place. However, the defense team 8 played and its combination with 2024 and our strategies has clearly showed the point difference in matches 2, 3 and 4 of the finals. In each match I saw the blue alliance with a clear lead. And even after a bombardment of obscure penalties, I believe we should have a chance to go to nationals. I don't want to rob anything from the winning teams, I just want a shot for our animation that won regionals and for our robot that made it to the finals.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

In fact, there was. It was Jim Beck, the FIRST Regional Director, who made the decision that the fairest thing to do was to replay the match.

<G14> was called incorrectly, but consistently throughout the tournament. This was not brought to the refs' attention until after the scores had been announced for finals match 3. At this point, what can be done? No decision will leave everyone happy. Changing the call would leave alliance one feeling cheated; declaring that the results are final leaves alliance two feeling cheated. (Either option would still lead to long debates here on CD.) The ideal solution would be for <G14> to have been called correctly in the first place, but given that it wasn't, a replay seems like the best option.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

The reffs don't even let you point out the call in time. They strand you in a box as long as possible since they are always skeptical and unwilling to regard teenage opinions. If there wasn't so much haste in posting the results, our patiently waiting alliance would have been addressed immediately after the match finished. However, having said all this, the matter has passed. Congrats to the winning team. If the rules were bent for the final match at SVR, I think FIRST should consider bending them for us going to nationals where we can have a real rematch, hopefully with more reliable penalizing.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I have something to add along the lines of that. In the haste to get 80 matches in on time, the field staff and queuing people rush you off the field. I was scolded repeatedly to "watch the score from the other side." I don't understand how the student captain is supposed to contest the score if they can't hear both the score and the penalties announced. When I did get to talk to the head ref though, I was satisfied with the explanation though not necessarily happy with it. However, it is all said and done, and we have to just move on and try to get a more consistent ruling somehow. I hope FIRST does take the unusual step of allowing the blue alliance's teams to get the opportunity to go to the Championships.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

For crying out loud... I turn my back on FIRST to go live my life outside of it for one weekend, and another blatant miscarriage of the rules happens at yet another regional.

I'm really beginning to wonder if this "training course" has actually had a NEGATIVE effect on the refereeing. In all my years of FIRST [since 2003], I have NEVER seen bad refereeing to this extreme.

The first really bad one I noticed was week 2 in the early part of Friday at NASA/VCU. They were not awarding hybrid points for line crossings other than the alliances finish line. Blatantly flat out wrong, as defined in the rules. No interpretation issues, no nothing, just plain wrong.

Interspersed is varying amounts of griping about G22, which while I think the rule sucks and needs to be changed, at least they're calling it properly.

Also, there's the Week 1 1519 incident with Speed Racer/Fezzik being deemed two ROBOTS, with no one ever defining the difference between a ROBOT and a MECHANISM. To me, the ROBOT Controller makes the ROBOT. Of course, theres an available counter-argument that its a robot CONTROLLER, and is thus attached to the ROBOT itself. This infuriated me, not because it in any way affected my team's outcome, but because this type of design was what I had always envisioned as the epitome of the intent of the 'interchangeable mechanisms, but must be within weight' rule, but never built anything like it because we have enough trouble making weight as it is.

Theres ALSO the Week 1 MWR incident with 16's BLATANT blocking autonomous against 1024 and 1114. It wasn't called, and it should have been, much less giving 1114 a yellow card for ramming. The fact that I disagree with the GDC basically outlawing any defensive anti-scoring tactics is irrelevant to the bad reffing regarding it. I think that "no defense" rules, specifically in autonomous where I would argue a large percentage of games are won and lost for powerhouse teams like 1114 and 1024, generate a very unbalanced game for experienced teams with a good autonomous mode.

Now week 3, SVR, blatantly wrong calls on trackball endgame scoring. The situation in question (red robot partially supporting blue ball) is EXPLICITLY set out in the rules, with a direct and plain ruling that the ball SCORES.

Now I'm likely to take some negative rep for this, but I don't care. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. When teams spend at least $4,000 to attend this event, pour 6 weeks of heart and soul, blood, sweat, and tears and whatever else into their robot, its not right/fair/just/whatever to arrive at a competition with sub-par officiating, much less be stripped of a regional win because of a blatant miscarriage of the rules. Being a volunteer is 100% NOT a valid excuse for producing shoddy work. Period. Lots of people say I'm being unfair to the referees, and that I should cut them some slack since they're just volunteers. News Flash: All the mentors of FIRST teams are volunteers too, and they need to know the rules as good or BETTER than the referees, since they are assisting in DESIGNING the robots to play the game. So don't give me that load of malarkey.

Go ahead, let the negative rep fly, and accuse me of being un-GP. I'm not afraid to stand up for what is RIGHT. Gracious Professionalism is a complex theory, but its right there in the name. Professionalism. Miscarriages of the rules, thats UNPROFESSIONAL. Unlike alot of CD-ers, I'm not afraid to make a statement that might be controversial. Just don't associate MY PERSONAL VIEWS as expressed in this post, and hold them negatively against the team I happen to be associated with. I can assure you all that my views would be the same no matter what team I happen to be a part of.

To the blue alliance I sincerely hope that FIRST ponies up an extra set of trophies, banners, and seats in Atlanta and awards ALL SIX teams the regional win, as its not fair to strip red of their victory because they made a mistake.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

After reading the flurry of posts today's events caused I think it is right to clarify a few things.

1. "high speed bumping and ramming" - about half way through practice matches on Thursday I noticed that the refs were being much more lenient on contact then they had been at Portland so I spoke to the head ref to clarify his interpretation of the rules. What he said was that contact within the bumper zone will only incur if the robot in question is repeatedly backing up and ramming an opposing robot. Or if they are pinning another robot against a wall. As for contact outside the bumper zone, we were penalized for it multiple times. If you are unclear on how the refs are going to call a regional, talk to them, they are quite friendly.

2. "impeding in the finals" - Once again we discussed with the refs about the legality of pinning a ball against the wall to stop an opposing robot from gaining possession. We were told that as long as there is an open lane for robots to pass through we are NOT impeding and receiving any penalties as long as we are sitting there.

3. "the do-over?" - After the finals were decided fro the second time I discussed with the head ref why he made the decision he did. The reason was, since they has made the call incorrectly in the past it would be unfair to reverse it then. I think that is absurd. I would have been much happier with the refs saying that they were sticking to there call and having just lost normally. Furthermore, I understand that the refs are only human and can't be expected to know every single rule perfectly. That is why it is the competing teams JOB to watch fro incorrect calls and step into that yellow box to show the refs the rule they are misinterpreting or mis enforcing. Just because previous teams had failed to fulfill this duty should not mean that the team that finally does it should be so dramatically penalized for the shortcomings of the previous teams.

4. "team 100" - If anyone on my team or either 192 or 2024 believes you to be an enemy after SVR I would be utterly ashamed to be on the same team as. You guys have a fantastic team, a fantastic team and really do deserve to be champions. Of course the entire blue alliance was frustrated we believe we deserved to win the regional but I acknowledge that you did nothing wrong and even came to all our pits to congratulate us on the regional as it was. Thank you for truly demonstrating what Gracious Professionalism means!


and last of all despite all of the confusion frustration and anger it was a pleasure to drive on the field with all of the robots at this years Silicon Valley Regional.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Well, I will be the first to say that your frustrations have validity.
At NASA/VCU where we attended, we indeed saw instances of what you are talking about. That is a an enormous error that affects matches. But overall, it was pretty fair referee calling.
Your point about our own teams has volunteers also is right on. When your mentor(s) help in designing a robot, we are expected to follow the rules 100%. Inspectors dont care about excuses. You get them fixed/modified or you dont play. Those are the consequences that the "volunteers" on our team must follow and prepare for.
The same must be said of referees. They must make sure they know the rules also. As humans, I can understand a missed call due to human error of not seeing it. But, to hurdle according to the rules done by two bots on one ball, or pass 3/4 lane dividers and get only 4 points, that's just outright a lack of understanding of how points are scored (my personal examples).

For those that feel that referees should be given slack with no gracious suggestions for improvement, what if the reverse comment was said?
"Why dont we just let robots play who dont pass inspection?" The excuse: Our mentors who help the students build robots are just volunteers. Give them a break.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

As the lead mentor for 2024 I can assure you we have no hard feelings towards anyone on the red alliance...only admiration! You guys were awesome and we'd love to have been with you on an alliance! Mahalo for the "Thank you" for calling a timeout so you could fix your bots. Our team captain called it without consultation which says a lot for his "gracious professionalism". I told him after that it was right thing to do and that we wanted to beat you guys straight up...it was unfortunate about the call in the third game to do a replay but you guys had nothing to do with that!!
I feel really bad for our alliance partners who both now will not qualify for Nationals. I wish there was some way FIRST could see the error and at least qualify team 8 and 192. IF anyone out there has any pull I'd love to see you bring the issue up. They were fantastic alliance partners with great spirit and would only be a plus at Nationals.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

By the way, I would like to apologize to the teams(were they 2035 and 766?) whose stations got slammed into by our robot in the quarterfinals and the first match of the semifinals. We really don't know what went wrong, the code was checked repeatedly and nothing like what we saw was supposed to happened. Instead, the robot was supposed to move up to the overpass to prepare to knock off the ball for 254 to pick up. Once we were disabled in the first match of the semifinals, we just gave up on it and got rid of the code altogether.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Congratulations to team 604 for wining the chairman's award! You guys really deserve it! :)

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Thank you! And congratulations on your win! It was a very exciting match.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Ok, I have a question to ask of all of the alliance captains. This is more of a feedback to me on whether we overlooked something. I mentor team 581 out of san jose high academy. At the end of qualifying, the team was ranked 13th (was at 9th right before their last match). Now, I will say that I watched very little of the matches because I mentor a couple other teams as well, but I'd like to get some feedback as to why 581 didn't get selected, so if you have any insight, i'd very much appreciate it. There are no hard feelings involved what so ever, I'm just wondering if the kids didn't talk to enough teams (advertising)? didn't look reliable during the matches? just not compatible with your game plan...

If it is something that can be improved on, I'd like to work on it for next year.

Also, if you would feel more comfortable answering my question though pm, please feel free to do so.

Thanks!