Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Picking alliances can be so essential, yet I struggle to my team to take it and scouting seriously enough. I'm not sure what the magic recipe is or if one even exists, I just know each year we try to improve on it.

One comment for the team(s) that don't understand why they didn't get selected is to say it is more about the seeded teams selecting than it is about "selling" yourself to another team.

We were in the fourth seed at San Diego and had to turn down an alliance selection from the #3 seed because they couldn't hurdle and we felt that we needed to be in an alliance with at least 2 hurdling bots. But low and behold in the 2nd round of selections, we missed a chance to get a third hurdling bot and the #3 seed team picked them. Hindsight is always 20/20 !

BTW: Here's a link to Finals Match 3 with both matches and commentary by refs as it was shown on the webcast...

http://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/joman...SVR2008FM3.wmv Thanks for the mirror Joman!!

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Guy,

I was not reacting to anything that happened in SVR,
I was reacting to the statement requoted below, offered
as guidance for week 4 and 5 regionals. As noted,
whether or not the knockdown is a completion of a
hurdle depends on exactly how it got there, and also
which direction it was knocked down in.

I did note that Team 8 was pretty good at knocking
down a bonus ball in their prefered direction at SVR.
I thought that this was pretty good thinking on the part of
the driver team.

Eugene

Originally Posted by danshaffer
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
 

I was going to avoid jumping into this thread, but I really can't resist it.


Sure, the refs are only human. Sure, it's a hard game to call. Sure it's very complex. Sure the refs are only volunteers, but maybe it's time that changed. IF a team is paying around 6k to go to a competition, they don't expect to be sent home and finished for the season because some random guy who decided to be helpful doesn't know his job. Here's my suggestion, and my opinion:

1. Refereeing a competition as high profile as this should not be left to volunteers. Period. When teams pay that much, work that hard, it's not too much to suggest that they'll actually play the game that they built the robot for.

2. The Blue Alliance should be given an invite to Atlanta, and both them and the red alliance should be offered a discount on their playing fees. If a team comes out that strong, that ready to win, and is denied because of the mistake of the organization, then it should be the job of the organization (FIRST) to fix the problem by any means necessary. Blue wasn't the only one who got shafted, the whole regional had the worst reffing I've seen at ANY competition over the years.

People might disagree with me on this, but I honestly don't care. What happened at SVR was blatantly unfair, and should be corrected, any means necessary.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Well said my friend, well said.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

We pay $6k not so much for the competition, but for students to have the opportunity to do something really cool and important in their high school life. I hear from almost every single parent of students on my team about how they wish they had this opportunity when they went to high school. The $6k is for that opportunity. You want paid refs? Paid judges, too? Then you must be talking about wanting to pay $10k per competition also.

Now on the flip side - it seems that the games these past few years have been increasing the roles of referees in deciding matches. Maybe I'm just getting old, but I don't remember all this drama back in 01-04? It seems to have all started with that stupid 30 pt penalty triangle rule from '05. '06 had the offense/defense craziness (not too bad in retrospect), '07 with ramp nonsense (we were let down by non-calls refs didn't make at Bayou), and now in '08, you accidently back up over a line and -10 ?

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

A few people have been mentioning that no one caught the partially supported trackball earlier. I saw this twice, once in one of our qualification matches, and the infamous incident in the finals. Immediately after the our qualifying match, i asked a ref (admittedly not the Head Referee) and he said that the partially supported trackball would score. I didn't stay to verify as the field reset team was chivvying us off the field. Needless to say, i was very surprised at the call in the finals. Although the refs should know the rules better, bad calls are a part of every sport, and in the long run it's about half for and against your team. Some are just more high-profile than others.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Wow, I can't believe I didn't get a single negative rep for my last post...

Maybe its that I came roaring out of the gate ranting, back in Week 1, and as more and more screwups are happening, more people are seeing it from a perspective that says its unacceptable.

Having been around since 03, I can't really vouch for older games, but I would tend to agree that since 05, we've been having much more penalty-centric games.

I dont even think there were penalties to be had in 03 or 04... none that I remember anyway... there was no bumper zone, so non-bumper contact was fine... I think the only things were like disqualificatons for overly aggressive (read: intent to destroy opponents bots) play.

In any case, I sure hope they can iron it out for our Wk 4 and 5 regionals

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

...I never said a thing about judges, so please don't make assumptions. If a team doesn't do a job to the best of their ability, do their mentors give them slack because they're not getting paid, and because what they do isn't required of them? No, their mentors call them on their failures. It's how people learn. If the refs were paid, or had more at stake in this competition, maybe we'd see better results out of them.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

How much are you going to pay? What would any amount of referee pay get for teams? I don't assume you're willing to pay enough to make this a full=time job. You can't just say, "We'll pay them to be good." Being paid doesn't create good refs. Even if you would offer $1000/ref/competition, that's not enough to get someone to devote their life to being an FRC ref. They would only be part-time employees, and could only devote part of their limited time to learning how to referee in FRC. Which is what the current dedicated volunteers do. Would you rather have a staff dedicated to doing their best for the teams, or a paid staff dedicated to making money?

I agree completely.

Why? Were the teams so scarred by this that they have to be compensated? The GDC should review this Monday morning. FIRST should be making phone calls to the teams Monday afternoon. There should only be funding involved if there are additional shipping costs (e.g. rerouting the crates).

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

04 was the first year for 10+ point value penalties, before there were minor penalties (which could take points or disable/DQ), disables and DQs (which were more common). There were penalties for many different things, ball chute incursion seemed to be the most common, but I also saw goaltending & robot scoring a small ball (humans had to shoot the balls). The Battlebot-like games of 02 and 03 are probably a major reason for this.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

it is unfortunate that SVR had to end in a controversial and chaotic matter, but there are a few things left to point out.
1. this game was not meant to be defended. though yes defending by herding balls is reasonable, there was significant contact between robots especially outside the bumper zone. In the second to last match 254's pneumatic pressure switch was flipped by a teams manipulator.
2. Our ball was popped for roughly half the second final match. this should eliminate any questions about that match given i don't think anyone doubts that 254 could've hurdled at least once in the time it took to replace it, making up for the difference making penalty.
finally congrats to all rookie teams, award winners, and everyone attending.
especially to CHS who was the third alliance leader and made it to semis in their rookie year.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

The fact that the ball popped accidentally should eliminate questions? I disagree. No one intended to pop the ball. It was an accident. What if the ball had remained full, but we had succeeded in defending it?

I cannot say what would have happened if that ball was in play, but I don't think you could either.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

its more that they had the ball their, but their was significant confusion over whether it should be put in

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

also 254 was in possession of the ball when it popped

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I don't understand what the popped ball has to do with anything..

I understand the problems with the ref call, and am saying out of that!

A popped ball is part of the game. There is no rule saying the ball can never be popped ever. Or they wouldn't of made it inflatable...

So regardless of what would of happened or would not of happened with that ball, point is it popped (in a gripper , not in a gripper , popped by red , popped by blue) doesn't matter the reason and it has nothing to do with the outcome of the game

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I was talking about the delay in which the ball was replaced and when it was popped

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I don't mean to hurt any feelings, but I'll speak frankly as our scouting leader.

For our alliance, we were looking for 2 hurdlers and 1 defensive bot in our alliance. Therefore, we accepted our partner 2024 becuase they could hurdle relatively reliable.

After that, we looked at defensive bots (which, by preventing at least one opponent from scoring 8 points, is a way higher benefit to the alliance in f than 2 points a lap), and the top of the list list were 8, 2628, and 114. All three played excellent defensive games. As you saw in finals, 8 played great defense, and how much defense can determine a game.

Also, 8 and 2628 showed good driver thinking under pressure by knocking off enemy balls that would have scored 12 points otherwise.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Perhaps it wasn't considered safe to put the ball back in instantly? Or even when it got to the field? The rule on replacing the balls never says "immediately"; it says "at the earliest safe opportunity."

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Way back on Jan 10, the GDC gave this answer
And on Jan 14

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

A trackball can be safely introduced at any time. By my understanding of the rules, it should have been introduced regardless of whether it was safe to recover the popped one. As the Q&A notes, the popped one would then be considered field debris.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

See the Q&A Gary quoted. Replacements for broken trackballs come in:

• at roughly the same location
• at the next safe opportunity

and debris (the old one) might not be removed until after the match. So it's not when it's safe to recover the old one, it's when it's safe to put a new one in. A robot right there makes it kind of unsafe to put a new one in, wouldn't you say? (IIRC, there was a robot in the immediate vicinity for quite a while.)

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

agreed!

If I remember correct there was a robot, by that popped ball for most of the time ( and if I'm even more exact it was a red team bot :ahh: )

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I can see where some may say that, but I don't think it'd be unsafe to toss it over the robots and onto the floor.

The person reintroducing the trackballs onto the field does not have to step foot onto the field, or reach over the field border.

There seemed to be a lack of understanding of where and when balls should be reintroduced to the field at SVR in general. In a previous match a ball went out of bounds and was returned to the quadrant PRIOR to that which it exited the field from.

I thought it was a blue bot, but my memory is fuzzy.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Team 8 was defending both of the trackballs, they had stopped moving for a while where it might've been considered safe but the ball was being rolled over from the volunteer area and by the time it was there 100 was pushing 8 for the inflated ball.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

In regards to paying referees, if we "do the math" like Marc Leone famously suggests, we get:
48 teams x $4000 (according to a previous post) = $192,000

I don't remember exactly, but if we had 10 referees, paid $1000 a weekend, (thats more than $300 a day and more than $30 an hour), then FIRST would be left with $182,000 for the Regional.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Not a dime of your registration fee goes towards the regional event--the event is responsible for raising enough money to cover the cost of the regional, without help from FIRST.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I've served on the Davis Regional Committee for years now - And will re-emphasize Cory's point - NOT A DIME from your reg fees goes towards the events cost!!

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I stand corrected. As a student, I have no idea what goes on behind the FIRST name, except what they ask of us.

The volunteer judges have a tough time on the field. They have to keep track of 10 moving objects at the same time. As the personnel standing closest to the field, I agree that with calls such as impeding, g22, bumping to pass, bumping while hurdling, etc. are totally up to them and will accept them as they are given. I commend them for doing their best at the difficult task.

However, the concern of confusion and "did I see that?" does not apply to rule g14 and other end of game rules. All end of game conditions are easily analyzed by looking at the field at the end of the game. Therefore, it should just be up to reading the rule book word for word, which isn't ambiguous.

"<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. "

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

That's not entirely correct. At least, it's not correct that the regional sees zero benefit from registration fees. The fees go primarily to pay for kit of parts and FIRST staffers in NH. You know, the high up knowledgeable FRC officals that are present at every event representing FIRST corporate and presumably empowered to make important decisions affecting the outcome of the event.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

FIRST has enough money if they decided to pay the referees. If you look at the annual reports from previous years you can see that their "cash" account has increased by about a million dollars each year.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

True--but the RD and such are being paid regardless of whether they're at the event, so I wouldn't really call that an event specific cost.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

*coughs*
Not ALL the RDs are paid.
*coughs*
And I'll note that I didn't include RDs in my list of NH staffers paid by reg fees..

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Personally, I don't believe paying the refs is the answer. This doesn't guarantee good calls. What would help, however, is making sure the refs are people who have been a part of FIRST in the past, or have strong feelings for what the teams do and how much we put into this, so that they will make certain that the calls they make are the right ones, and will leave nobody (or, as few as possible) scratching their heads over why the rules weren't followed. Now, I don't know what kind of people the refs are (old team members, mentors, etc.), but to me, this seems like the best bet to avoid another SVR like this one.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Just as an FYI it has taken approx 1day 6h for this thread to double in length about 120 new posts, or a post every 15 min day and night. Is that a CD record?

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I don't think <G14> is complex, and it's one refs shouldn't ever get wrong. Things like <G22> are "in the heat of the moment" calls, and should not be second-guessed. It's either a ball or a strike, and the umpire makes the call, likewise for impeding and crossing the plane.

Some of the posts here make it sound like there are an infinite number of obsessed, thoughtful, excited adults just hanging around eager to volunteer to serve at a tournament. Not true. The people who you really want are not going to be seduced by $50, $100, or even $250 paid to be a referee. They aren't going to miss work to go to New Hampshire for training, and they aren't going to be use up more of their vacation either (I'm not going to Boy Scout camp for the first time in nine years because I'm taking 3 days off work to volunteer at Seattle). No offense intended, but youth generally have no idea what sacrifices adults make to volunteer with youth organizations. I've been on the organizing committee for FIRST Washington for a year now, and I can tell you for sure that having too many volunteers is not a FIRST problem.

As for adding four scorekeepers (you would still need the two we already have at each event), that would be another four smart, dedicated volunteers who are already in such short supply.

Here's a suggestion -- each team is required to provide an adult volunteer for each event they attend. This volunteer will have attended two days of training for their job, and will have attended a series of conference calls. If the team's volunteer does not pass a 100-question exam on their volunteer job, the team is not allowed to attend the regional. That would certainly provide some motivation.:]

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Maybe, but it would need to deal with the game hint threads to get the record.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Doesn't this bring in some huge conflict of interest issues?

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Personally I place more blame on the game itself than the refs. This game relies too much on rules and penalties to force teams to play the game the way it was meant to be played. There need to be rules to avoid unimaginative and dominating strategies, but the rules in this game penalize teams for minor missteps far more often than score changing infractions. The refs certainly have a more difficult job than they ever had in the past.

I think 2004 was a good example of an adequate, but not excessive, number of rules. There were rules preventing goal-tending, blocking both corrals, purposeful tipping, and pinning that enforced the intended style of play without causing numerous accidental penalties.

I won't comment on who deserved to win since I'm biased, but considering how close it was, how large a role minor rule violations played, and the ref mistakes I think FIRST owes it to the blue alliance to let them go to Atlanta.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I however can say who i thought won San Jose Regional championship seat. It was red alliance (254, 100, 115). That was the most intense finals set i have ever seen, but they came out on top, and i say that with no hard feelings and no remorse. Blue alliance put up fierce competition all the way through, and there should be no further negative comments. To the poofs: you have a great robot and a great team, and im personally honored to have played against you for so long. After getting the opportunity to talk to some of your students and mentors i have come to realize that you are a great team which continuously pushes the limits of what FRC robots can do. Unfortunately too many bigoted people dont have the guts to go up and talk to you and therefore just talk trash. All six teams should be proud of their accomplishments. I look forward to following all the teams progress this season and in the future. Thanks to all the teams and members for making this a great year.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Jay, I agree that the refs have a hell of a job this year. I don't envy them at all.

I'm just as biased as you are about who deserved the win. But you know what? It doesn't matter. You guys won it. Cognratulations. You built an amazing robot, had a great alliance, and in the end, gave us more than we could handle.

I also agree with S. Bertsch. Finals were intense, you won, and we're very proud of the fight we gave you.

Hope to see you all in Atlanta.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I don't really understand you. You start out alright, stating that things like <G22> are a judgment call, and <G14> are straight up wrong when applied incorrectly, but then you go on to suggest teams pony up an adult volunteer, which you already said are in short supply (read: my team has ONE dedicated adult mentor). Never mind that the logistics of this are completely outlandish, and the conflict of interest issues that would arise are huge. I also don't really think paying the refs will solve the problem. I know lots of people that get paid tons of money to produce crap. The problem is that its alot harder to 'fire' a volunteer, because their output is crap. Its pretty hard to say to someone that their output is so crappy, we wont even let you do it for free.

I really, truly, honestly DO NOT think that it is unreasonable for teams to EXPECT that FIRST will provide them with a team of referees, who have at least READ the rulebook from cover to cover at least once. Many teams and team members read the book cover to cover tens or hundreds of times in the first week of build. I'll be honest. I DIDN'T read it "cover-to-cover" but, I DID read all the parts that are specific to this years game (Namely the Robot, and Game sections, and small parts of the others). I only read it once. I am known amongst my team as one of the most knowledgeable members when it comes to the rules, and I often find myself remembering something, then going to check it. This is all I expect of the refs. Something like <G14>. I might not expect them to KNOW the part about the partially supported ball by heart, after all, they're human. However, I WOULD expect them to at least remember "Hey, there was something in the rules about a partially supported ball, let me go check that before I make this call."

I DO NOT expect the refs to KNOW every rule in the book to a T off by heart. This would be unreasonable. I DO expect them to have read the book, and questionable events to trigger a checking of the book. The way alot of calls are being made this year, I almost question if SOME of the refs have read the book at all.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

the funny thing i see about people wining about defense, you guys wernt' aroudn in 2002-2004. thats when REAL defense was played in FIRST. I think first has become more of a finese type game. I loved watching the agressive play of 8 during the finals, 254 wasn't really getting ready to hurdle (or at least thats what it looked like to me on the webcast) when 8 started playing defense.

i just wish we could go back to the good old days with no bumpers...

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

99 where everyone was fighting for the puck also comes to mind... those were fun games...

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

What I do like about bumpers is that they establish the zone where robot-to-robot contact is clearly allowed while affording some protection (by rule) of mechanisms and other sensitive components from defense-oriented robots.

Having less stuff come off of robots during matches is a good thing for FIRST.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

This paid referees thing is getting a bit out of hand...

In my eyes, throwing money at the same volunteers is not going to fix a thing. I don't see these VOLUNTEERS as being malicioius people who only try hard when there is money involved.

Reffing/umping/whateveryoucallit is not easy EVER. I umpired little league, and it was not easy, and there were maybe 50 people at a game, let alone 3000 or so.

Professional help might be an option. Some referees will ref year round in several different sports. Its not unreasonable to have them jump in for the robotics season too...


sorry for the tangent..

brando

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

This comment is on the money. The teams will always study the rules much more completely than almost all referees. This is because the teams have much more at stake. A good solution to this problem would be to have a mentor from each team, or a subset of teams, who is very well versed on the rules form a committee that could be referenced when a question about the rules is encountered. One could subset the comittee when addressing something with respect to a specific match, so that no rep from the teams involved in the match speaks on that specific issue. This would go a long way to resolve the problem.

Ultimately, it is the head ref that decides given any available input, but a "rules committee" to refer to for learned advice would really help.

Eugene

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I want to apologize to all referees past, present, and future. These remarks were intemperate and not worded in a constructive way. I am truly sorry for them.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I've been holding back and just reading for the past few days, but I'd like to jump in and say a few words:

First off, congrats to both finals alliances, they were certainly the best matches of the entire competition (as it should be), so thanks for making it exciting.

And of course, I'd like to say a few words about the reffing.

This regional had an insane number of penalties, and what makes it worse is that I saw just as many penalties that weren't called. I do not believe these were the referee's faults. This game is so dependent on catching all the little things that teams do wrong in a match, that it's nigh impossible to catch them all. This game is inherently inconsistent in reffing simply because it's so hard to catch everything, and the penalties are so subjective.

I'm not saying this excuses the poor reffing in matches, but I would like to bring some perspective to the fact that these guys aren't going to catch everything, simply because there are just too many to catch.

This opinion applies only to in-match penalties that would require instant-replay to correct a call, NOT to game-state calls such as bonus balls, popped track-balls, etc.

It's also highly upsetting to me that the issue of supported trackballs was brought to the referee's attention earlier and was not addressed. It is their job to ensure that the rules are being enforced to the best of their abilities. Some rules are ambiguous, but G14 is completely clear in what counts for a bonus. Once a wrong call has been brought to the ref's attention, it is no excuse to continue calling it wrong just to be consistent. Consistently wrong is still wrong.

I do not agree that paid referees will fix the problem. I believe that referees who know the rules better are the solution to the problem. The referee test is a step in the right direction, but evidently was not rigorous enough. I don't have any better solutions, but I'm sure with everyone here, someone can come up with something.

</soapbox>

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I like this idea for a "Rules Committee" They'd have to be on hand for the head ref to ask for clarification, but having a group who's only responsibility is to interpret the rules would go a long way. In order to keep the committee fair, ref's wouldn't give team numbers, but only "If RedAbot did X" type questions. If something like this were in place, or if the refs had to go through more training and testing (I acknowledge that they do, but more might help a bit...), then we wouldn't have an issue.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I read this about ten pages ago or so, but just to clear it up:

Woodie Flowers Award was awarded to Lonny Weissman, mentor of Team 668, The Apes of Wrath

Volunteer of the Year award was awarded to Dennis Jenks, mentor of Team 668, The Apes of Wrath

I would also like to note that thanks to Dennis Jenks, Team 115 and 604 are going to be splitting $25,000 to go to Atlanta this year thanks to his hard efforts.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

You are assuming such a system does not already exist, and is not fully documented in the materials provided to all the Head Referees and senior officials at each event, and that it does not already document the precise procedures to be used for seeking clarifying information and elevating appeals of decisions by referees, Head Referees, field managers, FTAs, and other event personnel.

Unfortunately, as many of us have learned time and time again in our professional lives, having those procedures defined, documented and available is only one part of the process. The affected personnel - whether they be spacecraft design engineers, FIRST referees, airplane maintenance technicians, or almost any other profession - must also use the established, approved procedure once they are available.

-dave

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I would just like to say that today, we had meetings regarding what occurred at the regional, and the comments said about team 100, 254, and 115 were all very positive. Congratulations on winning the regional, and even though there was confusion over the final points for the last games, all three teams deserved to win. It was an honor to have played against you.

And to team 8 and 2024, you guys are awesome. I hope that we're able to ally together sometime later on.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Not to subvert the discussion, but if anyone needs a break from debating the replay of the final match at SVR, Team 766 has just posted our 16 on-board robocam videos from the regional. In total they feature 38 out of the 48 teams at SVR, so there's a good chance that we've got at least one video of your robot in action as the other robots see it from the field. At this thread:

http://www.chiefdelphi.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=65992

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Does anyone have the video from SVR for SOAP?

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I don't know, but I heard (i forget where), that the videos would be up "in a few days" and that was a few days ago.

Also, the "sj" folder on SOAP just got put up today, so im assuming they should be up soon. Thank you so much to whoever is putting the videos up!

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

WOOOT!!!!! OUR TEAM HAS BEEN WAITING!!!!!!

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

i've been checking like 5 times a day.. lol.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

ive been checking atleast 3 times a day... i wish they could post the entire event unedited so that everyone could see and feel the energy at SVR :cool:

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

yea that would be very nice. imagine how big the file would be though...


if i'm not mistaken, SVR was broadcast on the NASA channel so i guess you could have recorded it. or recorded the webcast.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

by the way, does anyone know why soap says "sj (291 MB)", when theres nothing in the folder?

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

i probably wouldve if i werent there on the field the whole time... but thats alright.... NEXT YEAR I SHALL DIGITALLY RECORD IT AND SAVE IT ON A TERABYTE DRIVE!!!!! BWAHAHHAAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!! (ran out of air) BWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAH!!!!!!

ok... im done... :D

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Probably because the files are started but not finished


just to put in for the who checks it the most, I have it open on my iPhone all day so whenever I want to check something SOAP is right there taunting me with no videos of my team

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I believe the finals matches are up now, although I haven't been able to view them.

Also, a request which I also posted in the TBA forum: If anyone from SOAP reads this, I would appreciate it if they could post a video of the entire finals, including what happened during the breaks. I think this will be helpful to those who are looking at what happened (although like someone else said, you should post all the footage you have anyway!)

EDIT: The video labeled as Finals 1 is actually a semifinal match, and I couldn't view video of any of the SVR matches on SOAP-I don't know whether this is due to my computer or on their side.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

We just finished the Hawaii Regional, where the calls by the refs were Fantastic by the way. Unlike SVR where someone was in the complaint box after EVERY match from both sides, I don't recall seeing anyone there but a few times and almost everyone walked away feeling OK. We had to face the dreaded 254 Poofs again - this time in the semi-finals with the also dreaded team 233 -Pink!! I'm warning all you out there...don't them get together in Atlanta! We took them to three games and handed pink their only loss in Hawaii but succombed to better bots. It was a hard fought match that saw pink go on its back three times. At least this one didn't go a fourth match??? Team 254 and 233 went on to slaughter in the finals...setting a regional record of 148 points I believe in one match.
Did team 8 and team 192 ever hear anything about being invited to Nationals?? I hope this got cleared up!! BTW - the team social was a Hawaiian Luau on the beach - complete with Kalua pig and poi followed by fireworks over the ocean. Team Pink won the poi chugging contest - go figure?? Sign up EARLY next year for Hawaii!! We may not even be able to attend our own regional next year due to demand?? We hope to come back to SVR! Aloha,

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

MVRT has videos of the finals up on their YouTube Page. Check 'em out!

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Take a look at who's playing. I believe the video labeled Finals 1 is actually Finals 1. During Finals 1, the announcer misspoke and called it Semi-Finals 1, at least once, maybe twice. I noticed it at the time while there, and then again while watching the video.

I will get the remainder of the SVR videos posted as soon as I can, but it will be a little while. I had a family emergency shortly after SVR, and am currently out of the country on a business trip. I'll be home in a week, and then I can resume posting the videos.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I've watched the videos... F3-a at the very end, you can definitively tell its a red robot supporting the blue ball, and the match score shows no bonus. Theres your failure right there. Blue should have won, regional over. But alas, thats not how it went down.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Oh-like I said, I wasn't getting video, only audio O_O

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Just to let you all know, we heard back from FIRST this morning.

They are giving teams 8 and 192 (team 2024 already qualified) a chance to go to nationals this year.
We (team 8) are still deciding whether we should go, even if we can find the money.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I really hope this doesn't become standard policy for FIRST.....

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Thanks for letting us know. I was looking for an update on the situation. That is a good decision and I hope both teams will be able to attend.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Seriously? That's so cool! If you and/or 192 decide to go, I would look forward to seeing you guys again in Atlanta!

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I'm happy about this specific decision. Its not the teams' fault. But I agree that if this type of officiating continues that sooner or later there will be 5-6-7 divisions and we will end up inviting finalists if not semifinalists and quarter-finalists too.



.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Thats the best news we've heard in a long time! Hooray for team 8 and 192 and for FIRST recognizing the injustice of that fourth match. For those saying its a bad policy, look at what happened first. They didn't add the score up correctly because they didn't know the rules! There was no judgement call in the middle of the match, it was a case where they made a touchdown worth 0 points instead of 6 and then instead of correcting the score they decided to replay the whole game....watch the video! Blue Alliance won the match and regional fair and square only to have a bad ref decision take it away.
I hope you guys can make it out there at this last minute...too bad it had to take this long for them to decide. We'll be looking for you guys in the pits!
ALOHA,
Team 2024

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

In a way, FIRST is declaring the red & blue alliances "co-champions" of the SVR. As such, Team 8 and Team 192 have earned their ticket to Atlanta.

If your don't believe in such a thing as "co-champions", Google it...

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I'm not really sure what you're getting at. 8/192/2024 actually won the regional, but an incorrect ref call (not subjective, wrong by the rules) gave it to 100/115/254 in a rematch.

No slight to 100/115/254, but FIRST made the right call, allowing all 6 teams to go.

If you think they shouldn't have allowed 8/192/2024 to go, then I would argue that you're part of the problem, one of the people who's not willing to stand up against poor quality officiating of the events.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

So, is team 8 and 192 going to be able to make it to Nationals at this last moment? Please let us know....

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I say have teams 8, 192, and 2024 return the silver medals and finalists trophies and trade them in for gold medals and regional winner trophies, declaring 6 winners from the SVR regional as co champions. It would be the "right" thing to do, not putting blame on anyone, and celebrating the right step towards all teams being able to participate in Atlanta.

Its not like this unique situation happens all the time.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

We had a team meeting yesterday to try to figure this all out, and decided to put it off until today to see if we could raise some money. Our sponsors have been very helpful, and we should be ready to announce a few new ones by Monday morning... in other words, I think we're going! (Haven't actually registered, but we got an extension until Monday at noon.)
I'll let 192 speak for themselves, but from what I've been hearing out of our cross-town rival/partners' shop it looks like they're going too!

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

that's great news....we'll be looking for you guys, team 8 and 192, to say aloha to in Atlanta then! I can't imagine how this is all going to come out in the film they're making on our team??? You are all part of the story now.
Thanks for your support too Glenn! We quickly got over the thing and now that our two alliance partners are invited its all OK.
OK, OK I know I said I'm over it but remember when we called a timeout in the third match so two robots on the opposing alliance could get repaired? I think we would still be talking about it today if the three robots on the other side in the spirit of GP sat still to correct the mistake in that fourth match. I think we'd be talking about hall of fame for GP. I wonder what we would do if the shoe was on our feet. I know I'd feel bad but would know that it was because of no fault of my own. It was sad to put all six teams in this situation in the first place. I hope it is corrected so it never happens in another regional again.
Good luck to all the teams at Nationals! We had a blast facing the poofs again in the semi's in Honolulu. Another knockdown drag out fight that went to three, but this time we lost :). You guys have an amazing robot. Aloha

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I'm not sure what you're referring to--the red alliance had nothing to do with the decision to play a fourth match. we were informed of it at the same time blue was.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

lavapicker,

I've been reading your comments and I think you are starting to cross a line, enough to get me to post. I was a volunteer at the SVR and watched all the finals, and your comments are a bit out of line. Keep one thing in mind - your alliance did lose the regional. You can keep talking about the bad ref call at the end of match 3, and it was a bad call. But it was one of many bad calls or non calls, and if the refs had called the game by the rules, your alliance would have lost by a big margin in EVERY match. As others have said, there never should have even been a 3rd match. Even with the bad calls, there was a replay, and if your alliance was the better alliance, you could have won that match, but you didn't. The right alliance won the SVR, and most I spoke to felt the same way (which says something, because most of them were rooting for the underdog alliance, yours, but stilll felt the other alliance was the correct winner).
It seems you keep trying to imply the 100 alliance didn't "win" the event, which they did. Just in 4 matches instead of the 2 matches it should have been in if the rules had been enforced. I'm sorry to criticise, because I thought your alliance did great, but please stop making comments like "the blue alliance won". The ref calls were bad, it was bad for all 6 teams in the finals, and I'm glad all 6 get to go.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Sam,

Can we refrain from mixing fact and opinion? Especially in a thread like this, everyone will benefit. On one side, we have something that is clearly a wrong call. A ball was completely misscored, with no room for much misinterpretation of the rules. On the other hand, whichever rules you're referring to (and I'm not looking to open that discussion, but I imagine you're talking about, at least in part, G42) do leave a lot more room for interpretation, and I have seen different referees call them differently.

At the end of the day, I agree with you. The Red alliance won SVR. I'm not at all a fan of the circumstances in which it happened, but that's what happened. But please, let's separate fact and opinion.

Thank you.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

Guy,

I agree with you, and nothing should be taken away from your alliance. You played the red alliance tougher and closer than I think anyone in the stadium thought you could. But if you want to talk fact, here is what most people I talked to felt was fact:
the blue alliance played the way you played in the finals because the refs were not enforcing the rules. To most who were there, including staff and other volunteers around the field - that was a FACT. No one blamed the blue alliance, because if they had given a penalty in the first match, I'm sure you would have adjusted your play in the following matches. It's giving your alliance credit to say you pushed the limits the refs let you push, and if the refs had been making the same calls in the finals they made the rest of the tournament, the "fact" is your alliance would have lost in 2 matches. Now you may have a different opinion, but I find many of the comments by lavapicker to be "opinion" and not fact. If the finals were replayed with the same 6 teams, with a consistant set of rules applied by the refs, the red alliance would win that match up everytime. Now that's opinion - but I think an opinion most unbiased observers at the event would agree with.

Guy, your alliance played great. I'm very glad FIRST is letting all 6 teams go to Atlanta, as they all suffered due to the lack of reffing in the finals. I think all can agree that the ref calls and non calls in the finals impacted all 6 teams a great deal. My "opinion" and others I talked to at the event was that both alliances were great, that your alliance performed better than anyone expected, and that in the end the right alliance won the event.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I've got to agree with Sam. I think some of the things Lavapicker said are out of line and a little un GP, plus just not true. I was there also, and I saw the same thing Sam did. If the ref had enforced the rules, the red alliance would have won in a landslide. Match 3 shouldn't have even happen, it should have been over in 2 matches. Even with the reply, both alliances had an equal chance to win match 4, and the red alliance did. I'm glad all 6 teams get to go to Atlanta, I felt bad for the blue alliance with how things ended, but I also felt the right alliance won and the red alliance was the best at that event. Bad situation for all 6 teams, but in the end seems like a nice solution - the right alliance won but both alliances get to go to Atlanta for what they all were put through.

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008
 

I like how some use GP to hit others over the head when they disagree with something. I could agree with techie if the error was a subjective call such as the ones you bring up in prior matches. You really have no point of argument because that's the way they see it and call it! Its like arguing balls and strikes with an umpire, its a waste of time and part of the game. Do you not see the difference in a subjective call and not adding points correctly however. Sorry if that seems un-GP to you to pose the question. Yes, I agree that 100 and 254 had better bots and that it took a strategy to overcome them. If we lose big time to them in two I walk away with my head up knowing we got that far and went up against the best and did our best. It didn't happen that way though and it was 2-2 in the best of three. When you go up against bots like 100 and 254 I know we would lose more if it went to best of seven, nine , eleven but in a best of three, we we had a shot.
I think the way FIRST handled the whole thing in the end vindicates my position on the error regardless of how you feel about it. I wish it had been decided sooner so these teams could plan ahead more. Best wishes to all, aloha

Re: Silicon Valley Regional 2008