Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Yes, the reason we have been struggling with that is that the proper extension position for the drop is not set yet. When it is in the proper position, it drops right into the grasp of our blocking arm, which pins it against the lane divider as soon as the ball hits the ground, both getting it stable to be grabbed again by the suction cup, and to keep other robots from knocking it away. This problem should be resolved sometime tomorrow morning however. Most of our problems at the moment are in the same area, missing sensor values. Once this thing gets some more testing time under its belt, we'll be much, much faster.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Do you literally mean not show up? I had to leave for an hour and a half to go to a class this morning, but as far as I know we were on the field for every single one of our matches.

If by "show up" you mean perform, then yes, we didn't show up for some of our matches. We had to chase some gremlins that made their way into the bot during assembly yesterday. We passed inspection literally one minute before our first match, so we had no time to test anything.

Our drivers are starting to get more comfortable with the speed the game is being played at, so hopefully we'll do much better tomorrow.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Yea, being in the pit nearly all of the day most of my info is by word of mouth, I geuss i was told 254 didn't compete in _____ match, and took that as didn't put their robot on the field. And I can't wait for the issues to be resolved, I loved seing the videos of 968 in San Diego and was/am excited to see the design in person.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

HURDLE: When a TRACKBALL CROSSES a FINISH LINE while passing above the OVERPASS
and then contacts either the floor or another ROBOT before re-contacting the originating ROBOT.

So the ball crosses the finish line, but is still touching the machine which does not meet this definition of a hurdle. This definition indicates that at least the machine has to lose contact with the ball before the ball has completely crosses the finish line.

Also an interesting issue comes from the crossing/crossed issue.
CROSSING: The act of a TRACKBALL or ROBOT passing through the plane defined by a line (i.e.
LANE MARKER or FINISH LINE) when it is projected vertically upwards. A TRACKBALL or
ROBOT shall have CROSSED a line when all parts of the object, while traveling in a counterclockwise
direction, have completely passed through the plane.

So I understand how the robot can still be "Crossing" into the next zones, but how does it not violate G22 crossing into the zone just previous to the machine? The machine is considered to have crossed that line for the purposes of the start of the match, and since it has not completely crossed into any zone except its home zone, breaking the plane into the previous zone should be a G22 violation.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I was picturing it wrapping around the barrier, I now really want to see this thing.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I am amazed that the refs allowed this at BAE. It is a clear violation of G22. You're entire robot is in the home stretch then part of your robot goes into the previous quadrant without your robot ever leaving the home stretch.

CCW and CW are relative to the field, not the robot. The turret moving CCW with respect to the robot has nothing to do with going CCW on the field. It is the same thing as a robot going into the home stretch, then spinning CCW and breaking the plane.

I am baffled as to how the rule can be distorted to make this legal.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Does anyone have a video of them in action?

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Can someone point me to the actual Q & A that was asked? The only one I found was the question regarding dropping the trackball. By the way, the GDC made it clear in that response that their intent was that the ball would be dropped from approximately the height of the overpass. If 190 is dropping it from just above the ground, then I would so much as say they are "lawyering" the rules because the GDC made their intent clear in the Q & A response.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

The Q&A is here

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

The ball can be in contact with the originating robot while it is crossing the finish line. If you look closely at the wording, the only conditions for a hurdle are that the ball contacts either the ground or another robot before contacting the originating robot. Thus, 190 remains in contact with the ball over the finish line (legal) and lowers it to a manageable height (legal), releases the ball (completing one hurdle), and re-raises the ball so that the turret can then bring the ball completely across the opponents finish line ("resetting" the ball). Rinse and repeat.

/Edit: Also, according to the referees at BAE, 190 is protected under <G42> during a very significant amount of this maneuver (>60%)

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

At what height is 190 dropping the ball from? (I haven't seen any video)

This Q & A would imply that they would need to drop the ball from the height of the overpass.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

The wording of the rule indicates that contact would be lost before the ball finishes crossing the finish line. The original intent of hurdling was to be a bonus for completing the same task as herding but over the overpass which would not suggest carrying the ball over and at some arbitrary time letting go and recapturing the ball.

The rule says the ball crosses the finish line and then before contacting the originating robot (too late! it is still in contact with the originating robot!) the ball must touch the ground or another machine. The order seems pretty clear to me. I don't see how this rule would suggest you can carry the ball over, and at some completely arbitrary time (or height?!) lose contact with the ball.

And to clarify, yes the ball can be in contact with the machine WHILE the ball is crossing the finish line. But not in between when it has CROSSED, and before it touches the ground or another machine.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I think, Fred, that with this interpretation any time a robot mechanism extends over the finish line during hurdling, the hurdle wouldn't count. Based on observations in Oregon and in watching Peachtree and San Jose on webcasts, a fair number of the hurdling robots would be disqualified, as their mechanisms are still touching the ball after the ball has passed the plane of the finish line. I would definitely want this clarified before Seattle -- there are a lot more robots that would be affected by this than just 190.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I see what you are saying. I still think crossing the finish line with your machine is fine, but you could say the rule dictates that you don't touch the ball while it is crossing, and so as soon as it breaks the plane... and I think that might be the original intent of the rules. Certainly though, carrying the ball completely past the overpass was not though. Yeah, it needs to get resolved - hopefully in a team update after this weekend.

On re-reading the rules though, it seems like the def. of hurdle seems to indicate an order of events, crossing and then touching the ground or another machine. That means to me that until it is finished crossing the robot can be in possession.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

1) 100 - 254 - 115
2) 2024 - 192 - 8
3) 2473 - 1280 - 2643
4) 190 - 2141 - 2144
5) 846 - 2035 - 972
6) 670 - 668 - 2090
7) 1834 - 973 - 971
8) 692 - 604 - 766

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Looks like a hot final:

#1 (100, 254, 115) vs #2 (8, 192, 2024).

A Woodside/Poofs alliance won CalGames last fall. I expect a fast and furious finals. Just about to start...

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

So who's writing the Q&A about that blatant incredibly basic scoring mistake by the refs in the final match?

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Never mind, they're playing another match.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

????

What was that call on the bonus ball? Blue had the ball scored, and then a red robot partially lifted it trying to descore, and they don't count the bonus for blue because the ball is touched (and a little supported) by a red robot? So, all you have to do is be in contact at the end to descore? Without going and looking at the rules, I think blue was ripped off.

Has blue filed a protest yet?

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

thats what I was thinking.... shouldn't that blue capped ball counted??

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I've noticed that they have been making that mistake regarding G14 (not scoring trackballs remaining on the overpass which have been partially supported by robots of the *opposing* alliance) all day!

Hmm, they just announced that they are going to play another match -- I wonder if it is a reversal of the G14 scoring problem. (I saw it happen in at least two other matches today.)

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Is that descoring of the 12 points for blue correct because the red robot was touching it??? That makes eliminating the 12 point bonus a lot easier. My drive team is confused...as am I. Now they say they are playing another match - HUH???

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

<G14>When the MATCH ends, each TRACKBALL that is at least partially supported by the
OVERPASS and not in contact with any ROBOT of the same ALLIANCE will earn a 12-point
bonus. If a TRACKBALL is in unrestrained motion (i.e. not in contact with another ROBOT)
when the clock reaches zero, its contribution to the score will be based on when it comes to
rest.

??? That is a blue win. This isn't good... A "tie breaker" rematch ???

I think the test next year needs to be harder...Can someone please explain why the manual wasn't followed?

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

The worst referee decision I've seen in FIRST. Wow. A "do over"? Is this a third-grade recess? How about this, "We made a mistake. Blue wins."

I feel sorry for Mark that he has to sound supportive of this decision.

EDITED: Having been a Little League umpire, I have immense sympathies for the referees. This same thing happened a couple of times the last day in Oregon, but there the refs called the ball as scored. Sorry for the harsh comments, refs, but this shouldn't have happened like this. Blue won.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

All I know is, there is no way that they should have called a do over. It should have been a win for blue. Regardless I dub that call as hacks, but w/e more matches = better.

But then again, refs are people to and they have the right to be wrong, but that's one heck of a time to be wrong

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

There was a similar match in L.A. finals, 2006. They replayed that one.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Wow!
Red won a close first match. Penalties were a big factor in the last two matches: a <G22> (zone incursion) penalty against Red swung the outcome of Final Match 2 and a <G42> (hurdling interference) on the Blue alliance called in Match 3 apparently swung that match in favor of Red. But then - chaos!

The penalty in the final was strongly contested and an announcement made that the penalty was rescinded. But then the referee announced that the final match would be replayed because of misinterpretation of the rule involving the supported Blue ball by a Red robot.

I don't understand why the match just doesn't go to Blue. Count the bonus Trackball and even if the Blue penalty is enforced, Blue wins!!

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

UPDATE FROM THE FIELD:
too much contraversy over blue ball refs decide to call it a tie redoing last match more to come

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Unfortunately, if Team 100 had missed "over" the overpass in match two instead of coming backwards, they would have won by two points and none of this would have happened... we saw this many times in Team 100's play in Oregon... In my opinion, another hurdle and crossing your finish line is sometimes the best you can do with a robot not necessarily designed to specifically place the ball...

well... good luck to both alliances...

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

i love team 254 and think they are a great role model for teams, and i love team 100 and everything they do

with that said its unfortunate to see horrible refereeing cause so much turmoil among who should have won SVR. ALL the teams put up a hard nosed effort, and even tho the refereeing was horrid, the refs did the right thing by keeping the horrid calls consistent in the end and giving the 4th match.

254, 100 and 115 deserve the win just as much as anyone else and kudos to them!

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I didn't see it but this sounds very similar to what happened in the finals on Curie last year. After the blue alliance (330, 910 and 1523 (?) won the first match, the red alliance (1732, 67, 48) appeared to have won the 2nd. But, one of the referees thought blue had one more tube on the rack that was not counted. Although that one blue tube would have not decided the match, the entire match was replayed and the blue alliance won.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

*jokes*

Guys, wait, were having a match number 5!!!!!!


*/jokes*


Is that a reason to deny someone a win?? Is that enough ground to say, "we don't care what happened on the field, lets do a do-over!"? ... I'm sure the Patriots would have loved that call?

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Before the end of match 3, I was rooting for the red alliance. Afterwards, considering the blue alliance won, I rooted for them. I think this win is just....wrong.

Edit: Not putting a wrong in the hands of the red.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

:(

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

congrats to 100, 254 and 115 on winning the regional

blue alliance you put on a great show, sometimes rulings go your way, and sometimes they cost you a regional

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

well, it was an unusual ending to this regional, unfortunately it was at blue's expense. good show and congrats to the winners

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Blue got cheated. That's all.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

After seeing this final match, I am rather upset. I understand the refs are human and make mistakes but, In my opinion blue was just conned out of a regional win. The red alliance was good but blue deserved to win after the third match. The inconsistency of refs from regional to regional needs to stop. Any other regional would have called it as blue winning.

Btw, this is not a post trying to bash the refs, I am just fed up with inconsistency's from event to event. And this misunderstanding of the rules has just cost 3 teams a regional win.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Not a good day for FIRST at SVR.

I'm afraid the finals controversy will overshadow what this event is supposed to be - a celebration of accomplishment for all of the teams at the event.

Field-side decisions are taking away from the purity of competition. FIRST should be able to rationally resolve the outcome of the match based on what occurs on the field. If an end-game rule is misinterpreted i.e. <G14>, the error should be corrected and the final score should reflect the correct application of the rule.

Unless further explanation can be offered, I just don't see "do-over" as the proper resolution of this situation.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

It's not just a Regional win, it's a ticket to Atlanta for some of these teams. Maybe they should give it to all 6 and call it done. No one is going to feel right about "winning" this, even if they did another do-over...:(

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I think that this may be the saddest part of this lose for blue. :(

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I'm watching the webcast and I didn't see Woz in the colinear arrangement of judges. Anybody know where he went? Or are my eyes deceiving me?

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

DEFENSE IS A PART OF THIS GAME!!!!! Going into this match I didnt give you guys even a slight chance . But was I ever wrong,your team changed its game plan after the first match and shut down the POOFS, that won you that match.The plan worked again , but I didnt understand that final call on the bonus ball. Your alliance (2024 ,192,8) lost the in the finals but you still should feel like champions for your fine preformance!!!!!!! Congrats to (100,254 115)for winning the regional,you cant take it away from you because of a bad call so enjoy the victory!!Remember the refs are human just like the rest of us,hopefully we all will learn from this. On a previous post by XAULZAN11 said in the Currie finals that (1732.67,48) had beaten (330 910 1523) in the second match . It wasnt 1523 it was 1270 who in turn got DQed on Einstien for tipping Beatty 71 while battling for the same ring ,another bad call but we had to accept it and move on to next match. GOOD LUCK to all of you the rest of the year.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

well unfortunately I was working on my own projects and while I watched most of the matches yesterday I missed the finals today =[ From what I hear it was a GREAT SHOW! Having been screwed by the refs before in competition I know how it feels. While I have much respect for 254 and 100, from what I hear the large trophies should have gone the other way. but I CAN'T WAIT FOR THESE TO BE ON THE BLUE ALLIANCE! HURRY!!! !:yikes:

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Indeed. 8's defense was brilliant, and nearly won them the fourth match. Of course, it helps that the refs were not calling impeding at all, but this is taking nothing away from 8-for one, that rule would not have affected them most of the time, and recognizing the conditions is always a key part of any sport. In match 4, both red balls were in the same place (one flat, which was not replaced for a rather long time), and 8 just waited behind them, which almost worked. Congrats, and congrats to everyone else as well! Even though my team didn't do so well, the matches made it fun for everyone.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Why thank you! We're quite proud of our drivetrain this year. The biggest problem we've had was our AndyMark Coolie Dualie wheels bending when they hit the plates on the inside of the field. We're going to try out their plastic omni wheels at Davis to see if they'll work better for us. Now that some small but killer code related problems are worked out, things should be looking good. Note: Don't put your radio next to the drive motors! Horrible packet loss causes for problems to appear on the field and not in the pits, driving the programmer batty when trying to troubleshoot.

A big thanks to 190 for picking us for the finals! Those quarterfinals were a lot of fun, and together with 2141 we put on quite a good fight.

Lastly, I'm not sure what to think of the finals. We love you 100, 254, and 115, but in my opinion the regional should have gone to blue. I was one of the people who ran (erm, walked quickly) back to our pits to grab a copy of the rules and bring them up to the refs. (Yes, I know people not on the alliance shouldn't contest and are probably just getting in the way, but it was heat of the moment, and come on! That rule isn't even one of the debated ones!) Then with 254's ball and field damage... Anyways, those were two amazing alliances and it's a shame they can't both go to Atlanta. Or as Meredith suggested, could they? I would be in full support of advancing both alliances as a resolution!

SVR had a rough start and a rough ending. Our alliance had a score of 9 before penalties for our first qualification match (match number 3), initially losing 4 to 0. It was pretty easy to contest an odd score, but counting laps as 1 point each is a fairly huge mistake. I'm surprised the software even let that score be input. Scoring and penalty issues aside, which seem to be as much an issue with this game as with our regional in particular, SVR was a load of fun with great competition.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Congrats to team 2643, Gunderson High School, for reaching semifinals your rookie year! Awesome job! Team 604 is proud of you guys!

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

To be clear, impeding has a specific meaning and only refers to robot traffic around the track. If Team 8 denies the Red alliance access to their Trackball, they're not necessarily guilty of impeding per <G40>. The occasions where their robot maneuvered in front of an opposing robot is risky and creates judgment calls for the ref's (regarding passing lanes, etc.). Just note that the definition of IMPEDING makes no mention of Trackballs:

IMPEDING: Preventing or obstructing an opposing ROBOT’S ability to proceed around the TRACK in the direction of traffic.

No team should assume that they have the right of unabated access to their Trackballs during a match. Some teams exercise strategies and tactics that make it very difficult for their opponents to gain control of their own Trackballs. I thought Team 8 did that effectively in those matches. In my opinion, their play was legal defense - pure and simple.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I was in our pits most of the time but I have a few things to say about everything.

Team 8: Wow, I never would've guessed a team could pull off defense like that amazing job. Keep pressuring FIRST on getting to ATL, I overheard you talking to Jim Beck and I hope that FIRST allows you in. Refer to one of the many threads like this and you may just get your ticket to ATL.

Entire #2 alliance: AMAZING right after alliances got picked we assumed a landslide victory for the #1 alliance, you proved us wrong and did great.

Refs: Kept up the consistency throughout all matches, and did a good job the whole time, I have heard people blaming the finals on the refs, all they were trying to do is hold up consistency

190: Good design, I have heard people talking about how it's unfair. Way to think outside the box.

254: Everyone was a little sketchy on if one of their leading competitors would be DQed or only at half functionality. Great work done in the pits.

2024: I loved your team spirit and everything about your team.

These are all my thoughts and things that jumped out at me.

If anyone has pictures of team 1458's robot could you please email them to me? Ramones.rock@gmail.com

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I don't disagree with you, but some of 8's other moves should have, in my opinion, at least warranted a count, but they were few and far between here. Again, the refs seemed to be going more for consistency than a literal interpretation of the rules.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

The consistency of incorrect enforcement of G14 in SVR-F3 was most certainly a foolish one if it was maintained after a correct interpretation of the rule had been arrived at.

Referees have re-issued match decisions after consultations with the rules before, and this is one of those places where a change would have been appropo, instead of a replay.

No QandA is required on this issue, the plain English of G14 is clear and it should be interpreted correctly at future regionals. I am sure it will be given the attention that has been called to the rule.

With that said, the decisions of the head referee are final.
This is the overriding rule that applies in this case.

I would like to suggest that words like "screwed," "conned," "cheated," etc... , should not be getting used in this discussion. The mistake was an honest one made by volunteers who are doing their best to be fair with the teams and adherent to the rules. We should recognize it as the honest mistake that it was.

Eugene

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

This whole game is terrible...

I hate it more and more each time we play it.... Its entirely decided by penalties. You can't tell who's winning. The rules are ambiguous and are poorly enforced....

I'm glad 2024 qualified for Atlanta. They truly deserve it. I hope team 8 will make it too... (This was team 192's last regional)

I think we made a lot of enemies today, even though we did nothing to anyone... :( I'd like to say sorry to alliance #2, and would hope that our teams continue to work together and help each other out.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Eugene,

Watching the webcast of the regional, Jim Beck was very clearly called for consultation on the issue. Between the RD and the FIRST Technical Adviser and other FRC officials available by phone, there should have been plenty of non-volunteer help available to help with the decision.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I should think nobody holds it against any team on your alliance. You were put in just as awkward a situation as your opponents were and what happened is definitely not the fault of your alliance whatsoever.

We were on the losing end of a similar situation in 2005. These things happen - life goes on. If you made any enemies as a result, then they don't get the point of GP.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Absolutely untrue. You and the rest of your alliance played the game, and played it well. Even if the blue alliance would have won, it would have been in 2 out 3 final, and would have been decided by two points (IIRC, two points). Everyone who matters knows that it was your hard work and ingenuity that earned you the right to be in the finals, and that if there was an incorrect ruling that gave you the victory, that it wasn't your choice. You, like all teams, rely on the officials running the tournament for rules interpretation and enforcement. You played the game and at the end of the day the score said you won.

I had the privilege of watching you in person at Portland and today on the Webcast. Your drivers are smooth and professional, I've never seen you mug another robot illegally, and your scoring is impressive. You may feel like you didn't deserve to win, but you definitely deserve to feel good about what you did in this event. It was an impressive achievement.

No one hates you!

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

My last comment in my prior post, adding whoever you want to add to the list of people involved in the decision, still applies.

I am not making any excuses for anyone, it was a mistake with huge impact, but a mistake it was. The words I have seen used in posts about the event are not appropriate.

Eugene

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

There was a similar <G14> in discussion in Portland when I was doing my scorekeeper training. The thing about <G14> is that as long as someone hasn't taken the robots and balls away, you have an infinite amount of time to talk about it, read the book, and decide what to do. It's not like a <G22> or blocking foul that you have to discuss from memory. With <G14> it's all right there to see at the end of the match.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Actually, I think that the 2008 game is a good one. It is different
in nature than past games, and this has led to some issues with
details in the rules.

There is no chance that the teams on the winning alliance at
SVR have made any enemies and you should not feel that way.
The teams involved are highly visible, and appreciated, members
of the community.

SVR 2008 is behind us. It makes perfect sense to have
constructive discussion about what happened at SVR,
learn from the experience, and move forward.

Eugene

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I don't think the game concept is bad, the inequities arising from penalty calls (or non-calls) are the issue. The referees have an unenviable job and are bound to make errors on some judgment calls in real-time. Where the rules and their interpretation is involved, the rule book, FTA or higher levels of authority are available for clarification. For some reason, this process wasn't effective at the SVR.

Your alliance shouldn't feel responsible for the way this played out. As uncomfortable as this all seems, I doubt that any hard feelings will persist between the teams involved. It's unfortunate that both alliances left the field suffering the consequences of those events. It's done, some lessons will be learned and we'll all move on.

As trivial as this may sound now, remember that everyone who participated in the SVR was a winner. You should feel proud of what your team has accomplished.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Wow,
That's all I can say for what happened today. And now that I finally got some time to sit down and think back, the finals were just amazing. I wish there was a way we could consider the blue alliance as champions as well, they clearly had as much ability and spirit as our alliance.
Our people that were in the pits at the time actually didn't know about the replay until later, which is part of the reason our robot came in so late, and also because our robot took quite a bit of damage in the previous matches.
Anyways, with that said, 115 would like to thank 100 and 254 again for picking us. Also, we would like to thank the other teams that helped us during the competition in any way, including the finalist alliance for using their timeout to let us fix our robot.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I was at the event today and found many things troubling. I was in the audience and had a few conversations with the teams sitting behind me and next to me, and the "talk" is pretty sad.

I saw a couple mention in this thread the lack of calls for the agressive defense, and everyone sitting around me was saying the same thing in the finals. I didn't see the event yesterday, but both the teams behind me and next to me (I don't think either was in the playoffs) kept commenting that no penalties were being called on the blue alliance. There were numerous comments that the refs were ignoring high speed ramming, impeding, blocking, pinning, and more. All of them said teams were getting penalties and warnings for MUCH LESS during the qualifying rounds, but that in the finals they weren't enforcing the rules. The team next to me said the entire controversy shouldn't have happened anyway, because if the refs called the 2nd match according to the rules that the 3rd match never would have been played anyway. He even said he was rooting for the blue alliance but couldn't believe what they were getting away with.
What really bothered me was the comment by the team behind me something to the effect of "yeah, but don't forget, that's the same ref that gave us tips to beat 254 last year, so he's not gonna call penalties on their oppossing alliance in the playoffs". I asked him what he was talking about, and they explained that last year the ref advised teams how to stop 254 and kept penalizing them during qualifying rounds. He then told me a couple teams including theirs atually passed on picking 254 in the playoffs last year because they were sure they'd get penalties in the playoffs from that ref. I've been out of FRC for a a few years, but still volunteer with FLL and Vex and follow things - but I couldn't believe what I heard today or saw.
How could any of that happen? How could penalties be called during qaulifying rounds but not during the playoffs for the same or worse action? How could a ref give teams advice on how to beat certain teams?

Seems all 6 teams did not get treated fairly. All 6 did great, played hard, and seemed to handle themselves well. Seems to me that the red alliance should have one in two matches if the rules were enforced but the blue alliance should have wont the 3rd match. So in 4 matches, from what I saw, I thought Red should have won matches 1,2 and 4 while blue should have won match 3. problem is, 3 and 4 never should have been played. I feel bad for all 6 teams in the finals, seems they deserved to have a clean finals with all the rules called correctly.

What I saw today did make me think of a thread I read a couple weeks ago after the first events about preparred ref. I'm gonna try to find that thread, but now that I think about it, I guess nothing that happened today should ahve been a surprise.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Hey, I'd like to start this post off by mentioning that both alliances played their best and deserved to win the regional.

/*However being a member of 115, and being a key member of the robots design team and pit crew, I have a certain bias to my team.*/

Even though I know the ruling of the referees is absolute, I do not support their opinion of having the rematch. We were declared the winners (by the referees), were sent back to the pits and started crating our robot....Then we got the news of the upcoming rematch.

I'd also like to add that when fixing the robot in between the matches, there was significant damage caused to our robot that had to have been intentional and in no way could have been accidental. For example, a steel 3/8 in drive axle was bent due to the overly aggressive actions of the opposing alliance. This threatened our chances of continuing on.

/*Once again, this post is not to place any blame.*/

Also, I would like to greatly thank team 192, 8 and 2024 for using their timeout to allow us the chance to fix our elevator spool. Also, I would like to thank the nameless members of team 100's drive crew who assisted me in my quick fix of the spool.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I was a driver at SVR last year, and I remember the comment that the head ref made about "how to beat 254" during the drivers meeting. I believe that topic was discussed last year, it certainly disturbed me, because although I was not part of 254, we scored in the same method and he was basically telling the teams how to stop us as well.

As far as this years finals are concerned, I was completely shocked with the level of defense and contact that was allowed throughout the final matches. In final match 2, team 8's catapult mechanism turned 254's pneumatic release valve, putting they're scoring mechanism out of commission. Why it was not a bumper-zone violation, I don't know. The extent to which team 8 blocked the trackball was very sketchy, I apologize for not knowing all of the rules front to back, but sitting in a corner blocking one of the trackballs is not allowed if I remember correctly (please don't thrash me on not knowing the rules, but I distinctly remember team 8 blocking two trackballs, one of which was popped, for over 15 seconds in I believe match 2) As far as the G<14> ruling goes, I'm very displeased with how the referees handled the call. Apparently it was being called the same way the entire regional (ie. teams would lift up the ball two inches and "descore" the trackball) but when it comes the the finals, they finally decided to change their ruling? I agree with Martin, this years game is too open to interpretation, which makes it really hard to be a referee, and have consistent ruling from regional to regional. I think SVR had the most defense-heavy matches you will see this year.

Nevertheless, very exciting finals put up by both alliances, great robots all around. Thank you to all the volunteers that made the regional possible!

Mike C.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I think I can speak on behalf of many people that we are not mad at 100, 254, or 115, but rather at the way the finals were handled by the referees. The facts that the referees didn't follow the manual, and FIRST stated in the beginning they would try to tackle this problem with a test, have made made many people wonder why SIMPLE problems are occurring and some of us are terrified that there may be a Finals match 7 on Einstein...

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I don't mean this in a bad way, but I don't think any of their team would have tried to intentionally damaged YOUR robot specifically, seeing as how 100 and 254 were the clear top hurdlers. Obviously, I was getting annoyed both as a driver and a spectator when there were clearly aggressive actions going on.



No "thrashing", but it is allowed as long as their is space to go around that robot on the track, which there was. Also, the popped ball couldn't be replaced yet because it was unsafe for the field personnel to do so. You can also legally herd their ball around the field to prevent them from ever picking it up and hurdling the ball.

Although the head ref was pretty reasonable, there were a TON of inconsistencies with the refs about many different things. We had referees trying to tell us that we had to have the entire robot on the slanted fence when only one point needed to be. This happened throughout both days, and even once in our last match. We needed to get another ref to prove that we were right each time. It also seemed like some refs were timid in calling penalties, unsure about whether to call an obvious penalty.

From my observations, it seemed like the refs were trying to cut back on calling penalties. For example, during one of the finals matches, 254 had a blue ball get into their gripper mechanism somehow. Immediately, our drive team turned to one another and said "that's possession" but it was never called. There were multiple instances throughout the day where the assistant refs didn't seem to know what was going on. Out of the 10 qualifying matches, I think I went to the challenge box at least 6 or 7 times, and even one more during eliminations.

I understand they are all volunteers, but even at the same regional, there were inconsitencies from one end of the field to the other. The passion that most of the students have are reflected in the fact that they know more rules than SOME of the refs.
But of course, we all know that at the end of the day, all that matters was we had fun(ish) and learned stuff (I hope).

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!

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I applaud you for asking a difficult question very graciously.

I didn't watch any of your matches, so I'm not able to address your question directly. I can offer this: other than being in the top 8 (well, maybe 10-12) at the end of qual's, standing is not a major factor in selecting a team as an alliance partner. Scouting by good teams will sort out teams according to performance (scoring, driving, reliability, etc.) without much weight given to standings. When it gets down to the "short list", there are some intangible factors that can influence a pick (performance in prior regionals, publicity, etc.). Selecting teams generally do have a game strategy and will select partners accordingly. I've witness several regionals where a team ranked at or near the bottom of the standings were selected just because they fit the strategy the alliance captain intends to employ.

Half of the teams are left to watch the elimination rounds and many of them wonder why they weren't selected. It's easiest to just say, "it wasn't our time" and enjoy the rest of the competition and awards. Don't let the obscure (and sometimes seemingly unfair) alliance selection process take away from your celebration of the regional. All the teams that put a robot on the field should feel a special sense of accomplishment.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Before I jump into the meat of this post, I must begin with some thanks and congratulations. Please take this to be my opinion, and perhaps the general opinion of the team.

Our outmost thanks to Warrior Pride of Hilo, Hawai’I, team 2024, and the Gunn Robotics Team, team 192, for inviting us to join their alliance. We made an excellent alliance, survived many mistakes, penalties, and bad breaks, and gave the #1 alliance a run for their money. Thank you guys for the most amazing and spirited alliance I can remember being part of.

Speaking of the #1 alliance, our congratulations to you guys. Teams 100 and 254, you guys had amazing hurdlers, and a great third alliance partner in team 115. We knew that if we make it into the finals, you guys will likely be waiting there for us, and that it would be an uphill battle. Thank you guys for some of the hardest fought matches of this regional, and congratulations on your victory. Although I don’t think anyone is particularly pleased with the circumstances surrounding the last match of the finals round, at the end of the day, you guys won. And worry not. At least in our book, you guys have made no enemies. Also, 254, if we accidentally opened your pneumatic release valve, our apologies. We never aimed to make contact outside the bumper zone, and we’re terribly sorry if that happened. Our intent was and always will be to play defense as allowed by the referee’s interpretations of the rules.

Our thanks must also go to the event crew and volunteers. Particularly, we’d like to thank Jim Beck (head of the regional committee, I believe) and Dr. Andy Hospodor (head referee) for taking the time to explain their decisions to us. I personally would also like to thank Dr. Eugene Brooks for coming to us with some words of wisdom after it was all said and done, which helped us think about this issue and post more clearly.

However, will the utmost respect we have for Jim, Andy, and the entire crew, we still disagree with their decision. For the benefit of those who did not watch the webcast, or did not hear the explanations from the officials, here are the events: (Note: this is how we understand and were explained what happened. Do not take this to be set in stone)

At the end of finals match 3, a blue trackball was up on the overpass, partially supported by the overpass and partially by one of the red alliance robots. The initial scoring of the match did not count that bonus trackball, leading to a score of red by eight or so (but definitely less than 12). We immediately pulled up the rules (looking at G14, which rules that ball should be scored in this situation), and went to the challenge box. After showing the rule to the head referee first, and then to several of the other referees, we waited for a result. We expected the regional to be over and that we would have won the match; after all, that twelve point swing should have put our alliance on top. However, as it was explained to us later, the referees have been calling that rule incorrectly all regional. As such, they decided to not change matches that have already been played, and replay the match. We played a fourth math, and lost it.

We disagreed, and still disagree, with the decision made to replay the match. In our view, the referees should have either decided that the call was incorrect, and award us the bonus points and the match victory, or kept the different ruling, and ended the match as-is. We do not think that replaying the match was the appropriate decision.

We will try and contact FIRST soon about trying to get some form of ruling about this controversial ending to what otherwise was an amazing regional. Should this have been the path? Are there any guidelines to event officials about what should happen in the event of a ruling mistake? The only thing we would consider requesting FIRST, and would really appreciate, is the opportunity to attend the World Championships in Atlanta this year. Congratulations to team 2024 for qualifying via their well deserved Regional Engineering Inspiration award. However, in the meantime, neither team 192 nor we qualify, and team 192 is not signed up for any future events.

Thank you for taking your time to read this post, and I hope it helps to clarify the events of yesterday.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Team 4 in '06 and '07 in So Cal and 294 just last week in SD comes to mind.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Thanks David! I do realize that the alliance selection could be as unpredictable as the lottery sometimes, I just wanted to find out if it is anything in particular that we can improve on next year.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

After taking some time after watching the regional yesterday, and watching quite a few matches from SVR that I had saved, I must say the following:

Even though the referees blatantly screwed up a call in finals match 3, they had also blatantly missed other calls all day. It was consistently horrible...

Through all that, the referees did the right thing in playing a 4th match. It would be unfair to not only be horrible but to be inconsistent with what they had done all day and all regional. They did the right thing in staying consistent with their calls and as per how the refs were ruling at 2008 SVR, the red alliance of 254 100 and 115 DESERVINGLY won the regional.

Congratulations to them, and lets try to not take ANYTHIGN away from their win.

While the blue alliance had one of the worst calls in FIRST put on them, the referees had missed several other calls, particularly in match 2 of the finals that cost the red alliance that win in that match.

Both alliances should stand proud. Maybe FIRST might give the blue alliance a championship bid, maybe not. Regardless of what happened both alliances should be proud, but lets try not to take away anything from 254 100 and 115s win in talking about the controversy.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Hey, regarding your question.

I'd have to say that getting chosen is an assortment of several factors. First of all, looking good is very important. My team, 115, was reliable throughout the matches. We may have lost a few, yet if we cap 6 laps and knock off 2 of the opposing balls it doesn't make us look bad at all. (this is assuming that the alliance captains don't only rely on rank to choose their alliance).

Also, I think there is a fair bit of PR/advertising to do with getting you chosen.

Anyways, hope this helps a bit. As I said earlier, I only do pit work so I don't really to PR/scouting.

Congratulations to both the winners and the finalists at SVR. 192, 8 and 2024 who put up an excellent show of gracious professionalism.


(haha here's a fun fact: 5 years ago poofs+115 won SVR. I guess we've come full circle.)

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Hey, guys. I'd just like to say one thing. As an FLLer soon to be in FRC, I watched the regional and it was a hard-fought contest. Although they played an extra match I think all six should be given Championship bids. However, I'd like to bring another example into play. If anyone remembers that Olympic controversy in '04, there was discord over the scoring. Referees are human, and we should accept our losses.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

We were also thinking why didn't we get picked, we had four of us just step back and say what do we have to offer a good alliance. We realized for a lap bot/herder we got awfully slow and can only do as many laps as a good hurdler but only get a quarter of their points. We realized that to be big we need to reliably have the ability to knock a ball off, get more than 4-5 laps per match, and play defense. We decided to throw together designs and ways of speeding up for Davis next week.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Well I guess if you have people talking to other teams and you can convince them that youd be a good alliance partner than they would pick you. The best way to get picked it to have a good bot and to let people know that you have a good bot.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

ya i know but as team 1516 driver i would like to say i was very shot down that no alliance had picked us. i felt that we would have been am amazing pick as a third bot. we averaged 5-6 laps and could place excellent defense and could knock the ball off ever time and stop the 12 point bonus for the other team. and if no balls were needed to be knocked off then we could do a total of 8-9 laps. i was sad but hey what can you do. nothing right. but we are excited for davis bc we got a huge trick up our sleeve and we are going to be even faster and easier to control.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Don't be too quick to blame this on the performance of
your own team. It could be that, in some cases, the teams
involved in picking partners could do better in their scouting
activities. I'll not mention any names here...

Eugene

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

With regards to alliance selections:

Sometimes you just have to know how to impress. After attempting to fix our hurdling mechanism for our first nine matches (out of ten), we finally conceded that we should try to make eliminations as a ball knocker / lap runner / defensive bot. We were playing against team 192, the #3 seed and eventual member of the #2 alliance. During that match, we estimate we cost them a hurdle or two, while running seven laps and knocking a ball off. We believe that's where we convinced them we make a fantastic third alliance member, and we took it all the way to the finals.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Although I understand the pressure the referees are under, saying they are only human is a poor excuse. This isn't a matter of not seeing something because it happened quickly or not being able to perfectly recall what happened.
But here's my real question: Why was this not brought up before the finals?

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I don't know. Were other teams unaware of this ruling, or simply did not care to change it, as maybe it never affected the final result of a match? I know that we brought it up the first time we saw it happen, but, from the cheering of the crowd, it seemed that everyone else thought it shouldn't be scored.

I personally approached the refs earlier in the regional about a hurdle not being scored when it should have, and even though it did not affect the final score of the match, it changed the future ruling.

I guess, let it be a warning to all teams: If you see the referees making what you think is a ruling interpretation mistake, point it out as soon as you see it. That way, maybe we can avoid unfortunate situations such as this one in th future.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

And for those of you with week 4 or 5 regionals, it is our interpretation of the rules that:
1. If a robot from Alliance B descores a ball belonging to Alliance A that was placed there by a robot from Alliance A and it ends up on the other side of the finish line (ie not in Alliance A's home stretch) it is an 8-point hurdle. Keep this in mind when attempting to remove bonus balls. This comes from the definition of hurdle.
2. Bonus balls must not be supported by a robot from the same alliance. Balls that are supported by only the overpass and robots from that alliance are scored as +12 in accordance with G14.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

So much for the certification test, huh?

What I'm wondering about and somewhat surprised at is why this mistake wasn't caught earlier in the regional and brought up to the referees - then the error could have been remedied (perhaps with some score changes to previous matches) and the game played as described in the rulebook. That responsibility would have had to lie with the teams.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

As part of the drive crew (finally in time for senior year), I would like to thank the blue alliance for calling their timeout for us before the second match so that we could fix the spool for the elevator. As a team, we truly appreciate it. It was an act of true gracious professionalism that we all applaud to.

I believe that the blue alliance did a fabulous job in the finals. For our team, it was one of the toughest matches we had yet to face as all three teams had amazing bots. I can only wish that the blue alliance could also qualify for championships as well because they deserve it wholeheartedly. I spoke with a member from Gunn as I walked back into the Event Center for eliminations, and he said that our team was lucky to be picked into the first alliance. But I must say that we were lucky to face Gunn and their alliance partners in the finals because all three are wonderful teams.

As for getting picked into eliminations this year for our team, it was a total surprise. When it came down to the last pick, I was actually about to leave for lunch because I figured we weren't going to get picked, but then I heard the magic number "115". So I would like to take this time to likewise thank 100 and 254. You guys both have amazing bots, and I look forward to competing with your teams in the future.

Good Luck to everyone competing in another regional this month and at Championships (I'll see you there! :) )

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

With regard to item 1, it depends on how it was put there.
If it was put there after carrying it past the finish line, or
after scoring it past the finish line for 2 points, it would
not count as a hurdle. Some robots can put a ball on the
overpass reaching backwards without breaking the plane.

Eugene

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

That is true. However, the situation we discussed with the refs and clarified, was as follows: red ball starts on the red side over pass. It is knocked down, and is carried across the blue finish line. It is then shot from the red home stretch onto the overpass, where it stays until a blue robot knocks it in the counter-clockwise direction.

That was initially not scored as a hurdle, and after clarification, was called a hurdle.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Please more detail Eugene ;)